The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Methods and Annotated Data Sets Used to Predict the Gender and Age of Twitter Users: Scoping Review
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Background: Patient health data collected from a variety of nontraditional resources, commonly referred to as real-world data, can be a key information source for health and social science research. Social media platforms, such as Twitter (Twitter, Inc), offer vast amounts of real-world data. An important aspect of incorporating social media data in scientific research is identifying the demographic characteristics of the users who posted those data. Age and gender are considered key demographics for assessing the representativeness of the sample and enable researchers to study subgroups and disparities effectively. However, deciphering the age and gender of social media users poses challenges. Objective: This scoping review aims to summarize the existing literature on the prediction of the age and gender of Twitter users and provide an overview of the methods used. Methods: We searched 15 electronic databases and carried out reference checking to identify relevant studies that met our inclusion criteria: studies that predicted the age or gender of Twitter users using computational methods. The screening process was performed independently by 2 researchers to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the included studies. Results: Of the initial 684 studies retrieved, 74 (10.8%) studies met our inclusion criteria. Among these 74 studies, 42 (57%) focused on predicting gender, 8 (11%) focused on predicting age, and 24 (32%) predicted a combination of both age and gender. Gender prediction was predominantly approached as a binary classification task, with the reported performance of the methods ranging from 0.58 to 0.96 F1-score or 0.51 to 0.97 accuracy. Age prediction approaches varied in terms of classification groups, with a higher range of reported performance, ranging from 0.31 to 0.94 F1-score or 0.43 to 0.86 accuracy. The heterogeneous nature of the studies and the reporting of dissimilar performance metrics made it challenging to quantitatively synthesize results and draw definitive conclusions. Conclusions: Our review found that although automated methods for predicting the age and gender of Twitter users have evolved to incorporate techniques such as deep neural networks, a significant proportion of the attempts rely on traditional machine learning methods, suggesting that there is potential to improve the performance of these tasks by using more advanced methods. Gender prediction has generally achieved a higher reported performance than age prediction. However, the lack of standardized reporting of performance metrics or standard annotated corpora to evaluate the methods used hinders any meaningful comparison of the approaches. Potential biases stemming from the collection and labeling of data used in the studies was identified as a problem, emphasizing the need for careful consideration and mitigation of biases in future studies. This scoping review provides valuable insights into the methods used for predicting the age and gender of Twitter users, along with the challenges and considerations associated with these methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 144 · Cited by 10
Research works printed but not linked: 148
- 10.1186/s12976-017-0074-5 · DOI
- 10.4081/gh.2020.882 · DOI
- 10.1093/jamia/ocab114 · DOI
- 10.1093/jamia/ocu041 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11606-020-05988-8 · DOI
- 10.1109/cibcb.2019.8791452 · DOI
- 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.834 · DOI
- Weissenbacher, D, 2022, AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc, 504
- 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303512 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2288-14-127 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.outlook.2009.10.004 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0207112 · DOI
- 10.1109/MIS.2012.76 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2196/35788 · DOI
- 10.2196/25736 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1161/JAHA.119.014733 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ejim.2021.01.028 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-021-24265-8 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41586-019-1657-6 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12889-019-7390-0 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.numecd.2020.05.005 · DOI
- 10.1111/jan.12361 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.042 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14168 · DOI
- 10.1609/icwsm.v6i1.14320 · DOI
- AlowibdiJSBuyUAYuPLanguage independent gender classification on TwitterProceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and MiningASONAM '13August 25-28, 2013Niagara Falls, ON · DOI
- 10.1109/ictai.2016.0048 · DOI
- 10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9204 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0115545 · DOI
- 10.48550/arXiv.1301.3781 · DOI · Paper page
- MikolovTSutskeverIChenKCorradoGDeanJDistributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionalityProceedings of the 26th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 2NIPS'13December 5-10, 2013Lake Tahoe, Nevada
- Umar, A, 2019, i-Manager J Comput Sci, 6, 12
- Lefebvre, C, 2022, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3
- 10.1017/S0266462310000966 · DOI
- 10.1111/hir.12313 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0 · DOI · Paper page
- Alessandra, R, 2019, New Statistical Developments in Data Science
- Alfayez, A, 2017, Social Computing and Social Media. Applications and Analytics
- 10.1109/iciss50791.2020.9307598 · DOI
- 10.1109/icdmw.2017.144 · DOI
- 10.1007/s13278-017-0478-6 · DOI
- 10.1145/3389189.3397992 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-72926-8_28 · DOI
- 10.1007/s42001-019-00061-9 · DOI
- 10.13053/CyS-22-3-3036 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-030-20521-8_51 · DOI
- 10.1177/0890117116686574 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0207506 · DOI
- 10.1057/s41599-019-0314-x · DOI
- 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000567 · DOI
- 10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14894 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-71273-4_16 · DOI
- Cheng, JK, 2018, Neural Information Processing
- 10.1145/3443279.3443300 · DOI
- 10.1109/asonam49781.2020.9381379 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.eij.2020.04.001 · DOI
- 10.18653/v1/w17-4407 · DOI
- 10.3390/app10175957 · DOI
- 10.1109/wacvw.2017.8 · DOI
- 10.1109/ivmspw.2018.8448788 · DOI
- 10.1109/access.2017.2706674 · DOI
- HasanuzzamanMDiasGWayADemographic word embeddings for racism detection on TwitterProceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers)IJCNLP 2017November 28-30, 2017Taipei, Taiwan
- 10.18653/v1/w17-2901 · DOI
- 10.1007/s12525-019-00336-z · DOI
- 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024018 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.eij.2018.12.002 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-67256-4_43 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.013 · DOI
- 10.13053/cys-22-4-3061 · DOI
- 10.18653/v1/p17-2075 · DOI
- 10.1109/eisic.2018.00022 · DOI
- 10.18653/v1/W17-2901 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112909 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/978-3-319-62428-0_9 · DOI
- 10.1145/3106426.3106472 · DOI
- 10.1145/3281375.3281383 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0183537 · DOI
- 10.1145/3449181 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10257-016-0312-0 · DOI
- 10.1109/saupec/robmech/prasa48453.2020.9040955 · DOI
- 10.1109/iri.2018.00017 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.future.2019.08.018 · DOI
- 10.1109/dsaa49011.2020.00088 · DOI
- 10.1145/3078714.3078734 · DOI
- 10.2196/17196 · DOI
- 10.2196/16191 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-981-13-2414-7_36 · DOI
- 10.3145/epi.2020.may.01 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.509 · DOI
- 10.18653/v1/p18-2061 · DOI
- 10.1109/issc49989.2020.9180161 · DOI
- 10.18653/v1/w17-1418 · DOI
- Vicente, M, 2018, Interactions Between Computational Intelligence and Mathematics Part 2
- 10.18653/v1/p17-2076 · DOI
- 10.1145/3078714.3078742 · DOI
- VolkovaSPredicting demographics and affect in social networksThe Johns Hopkins University2015102023-03-30https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/39639/VOLKOVA-DISSERTATION-2015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
- 10.1007/978-3-319-60240-0_4 · DOI
- 10.1145/3308558.3313684 · DOI
- 10.1145/3388142.3388145 · DOI
- 10.18653/v1/w17-2912 · DOI
- 10.18653/v1/w18-1114 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-51811-4_42 · DOI
- 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab042 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0226248 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4054/demres.2017.37.46 · DOI
- 10.2196/26482 · DOI
- Zhao, Y, 2020, AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc, 730
- 10.48550/arXiv.1710.11048 · DOI
- RangelFRossoPKoppelMStamatatosEInchesGOverview of the author profiling task at PAN 2013Proceedings of the CLEF Conference on Multilingual and Multimodal Information Access EvaluationCLEF 2013September 23-26, 2013Valencia, Spain
- RangelFCelliFRossoPPotthastMSteinBDaelemansWOverview of the 3rd author profiling task at PAN 2015Proceedings of the CLEF 2015 Conference and Labs of the Evaluation ForumCLEF 2015September 8-11, 2015Toulouse, France
- RangelFRossoPVerhoevenBDaelemansWPotthastMSteinBOverview of the 4th author profiling task at PAN 2016: cross-genre evaluationsProceedings of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation ForumCLEF 2016September 5-8, 2016Evora, Portugal
- RangelFRossoPPotthastMSteinBOverview of the 5th author profiling task at PAN 2017: gender and language variety identification in TwitterProceedings of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation ForumCLEF 2017September 11-14, 2017Dublin, Ireland
- RangelFRossoPMontes-y-GómezMPotthastMSteinBOverview of the 6th author profiling task at PAN 2018: multimodal gender identification in TwitterProceedings of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation ForumCLEF 2018September 10-14, 2018Avignon, France
- RangelFRossoPOverview of the 7th author profiling task at PAN 2019: bots and gender profiling in TwitterProceedings of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation ForumCLEF 2019September 9-12, 2019Lugano, Switzerland
- BurgerJDHendersonJKimGZarrellaGDiscriminating gender on TwitterProceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language ProcessingEMNLP 2011July 27-31, 2011Edinburgh, UK
- VolkovaSWilsonTYarowskyDExploring demographic language variations to improve multilingual sentiment analysis in social mediaProceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language ProcessingEMNLP 2013October 18-21, 2013Seattle, WA
- LiuWRuthsDWhat’s in a name? Using first names as features for gender inference in TwitterProceedings of the AAAI 2013 Spring Symposium SeriesAAAI 2013 Spring Symposium SeriesMarch 25-27, 2013Palo Alto, CA
- 10.18653/v1/w15-2913 · DOI
- VerhoevenBDaelemansWPlankBTwiSty: a multilingual twitter stylometry corpus for gender and personality profilingProceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'16)LREC'16May 23-28, 2016Portorož, Slovenia
- 10.1109/bigdata.2017.8258555 · DOI
- PizarroJUsing N-grams to detect Bots on Twitter Notebook for PAN at CLEF 2019Proceedings of the Conference and Labs of the Evaluation ForumCLEF 2019September 9-12, 2019Lugano, Switzerland
- 10.18653/v1/w16-5614 · DOI
- 10.3115/v1/p14-1018 · DOI
- 10.3115/v1/d14-1121 · DOI
- 10.1109/iccvw.2013.58 · DOI
- 10.18653/v1/2021.socialnlp-1.11 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11263-016-0940-3 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.2211613120 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11357-013-9510-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cger.2012.01.007 · DOI
- 10.18653/v1/w18-5904 · DOI
- 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31561-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0262087 · DOI
- 10.5153/sro.3001 · DOI
- 10.1177/2056305117698981 · DOI
- 10.1609/icwsm.v12i1.15058 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.005 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.021 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0090113 · DOI
- 10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_1179_21 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.146 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.media.2020.101759 · DOI
- 10.2196/jmir.7081 · DOI
- 10.1177/0038038517708140 · DOI · Paper page
- SinghLPolyzouAWangYFarrJGresenzCRSocial media data - our ethical conundrumBulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineerin20202023-03-30http://sites.computer.org/debull/A20dec/p23.pdf
- Valdez, R, 2019, Social Web and Health Research
- 10.18653/v1/w17-1612 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.02.006 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- O'Connor, K., Golder, S., Weissenbacher, D., Klein, A. Z., Magge, A., & Gonzalez-Hernandez, G.
- Affiliations
- University of York (GB)
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2024-03-15
- Volume
- 26
- Pages
- e47923
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10980991
- OpenAlex
- W4392847366
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 144
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 0.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM011176)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- age prediction, gender prediction, Twitter users, real-world data, annotated corpus, deep neural network, machine learning model performance, sample representativeness, health disparities research
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Adult, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Neural Networks, Computer, Young Adult, Social Media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review