Cited by 10Authorship Attribution and ProfilingMental Health via WritingEthics and Social Impacts of AI

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 access
O'Connor, Karen, Golder, Su, Weissenbacher, Davy, Klein, Ari Z, Magge, Arjun, Gonzalez-Hernandez, Graciela·2024·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/47923

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

  1. 10.1186/s12976-017-0074-5 · DOI
  2. 10.4081/gh.2020.882 · DOI
  3. 10.1093/jamia/ocab114 · DOI
  4. 10.1093/jamia/ocu041 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s11606-020-05988-8 · DOI
  6. 10.1109/cibcb.2019.8791452 · DOI
  7. 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.834 · DOI
  8. Weissenbacher, D, 2022, AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc, 504
  9. 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303512 · DOI
  10. 10.1186/1471-2288-14-127 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.outlook.2009.10.004 · DOI
  12. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207112 · DOI
  13. 10.1109/MIS.2012.76 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.2196/35788 · DOI
  15. 10.2196/25736 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1161/JAHA.119.014733 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.ejim.2021.01.028 · DOI
  18. 10.1038/s41467-021-24265-8 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/s41586-019-1657-6 · DOI
  20. 10.1186/s12889-019-7390-0 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.numecd.2020.05.005 · DOI
  22. 10.1111/jan.12361 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.042 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14168 · DOI
  25. 10.1609/icwsm.v6i1.14320 · DOI
  26. 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
  27. 10.1109/ictai.2016.0048 · DOI
  28. 10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9204 · DOI
  29. 10.1371/journal.pone.0115545 · DOI
  30. 10.48550/arXiv.1301.3781 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 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
  32. Umar, A, 2019, i-Manager J Comput Sci, 6, 12
  33. Lefebvre, C, 2022, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3
  34. 10.1017/S0266462310000966 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/hir.12313 · DOI
  36. 10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Alessandra, R, 2019, New Statistical Developments in Data Science
  38. Alfayez, A, 2017, Social Computing and Social Media. Applications and Analytics
  39. 10.1109/iciss50791.2020.9307598 · DOI
  40. 10.1109/icdmw.2017.144 · DOI
  41. 10.1007/s13278-017-0478-6 · DOI
  42. 10.1145/3389189.3397992 · DOI
  43. 10.1007/978-3-319-72926-8_28 · DOI
  44. 10.1007/s42001-019-00061-9 · DOI
  45. 10.13053/CyS-22-3-3036 · DOI
  46. 10.1007/978-3-030-20521-8_51 · DOI
  47. 10.1177/0890117116686574 · DOI
  48. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207506 · DOI
  49. 10.1057/s41599-019-0314-x · DOI
  50. 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000567 · DOI
  51. 10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14894 · DOI
  52. 10.1007/978-3-319-71273-4_16 · DOI
  53. Cheng, JK, 2018, Neural Information Processing
  54. 10.1145/3443279.3443300 · DOI
  55. 10.1109/asonam49781.2020.9381379 · DOI
  56. 10.1016/j.eij.2020.04.001 · DOI
  57. 10.18653/v1/w17-4407 · DOI
  58. 10.3390/app10175957 · DOI
  59. 10.1109/wacvw.2017.8 · DOI
  60. 10.1109/ivmspw.2018.8448788 · DOI
  61. 10.1109/access.2017.2706674 · DOI
  62. 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
  63. 10.18653/v1/w17-2901 · DOI
  64. 10.1007/s12525-019-00336-z · DOI
  65. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024018 · DOI
  66. 10.1016/j.eij.2018.12.002 · DOI
  67. 10.1007/978-3-319-67256-4_43 · DOI
  68. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.013 · DOI
  69. 10.13053/cys-22-4-3061 · DOI
  70. 10.18653/v1/p17-2075 · DOI
  71. 10.1109/eisic.2018.00022 · DOI
  72. 10.18653/v1/W17-2901 · DOI
  73. 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112909 · DOI · Paper page
  74. 10.1007/978-3-319-62428-0_9 · DOI
  75. 10.1145/3106426.3106472 · DOI
  76. 10.1145/3281375.3281383 · DOI
  77. 10.1371/journal.pone.0183537 · DOI
  78. 10.1145/3449181 · DOI
  79. 10.1007/s10257-016-0312-0 · DOI
  80. 10.1109/saupec/robmech/prasa48453.2020.9040955 · DOI
  81. 10.1109/iri.2018.00017 · DOI
  82. 10.1016/j.future.2019.08.018 · DOI
  83. 10.1109/dsaa49011.2020.00088 · DOI
  84. 10.1145/3078714.3078734 · DOI
  85. 10.2196/17196 · DOI
  86. 10.2196/16191 · DOI
  87. 10.1007/978-981-13-2414-7_36 · DOI
  88. 10.3145/epi.2020.may.01 · DOI
  89. 10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.509 · DOI
  90. 10.18653/v1/p18-2061 · DOI
  91. 10.1109/issc49989.2020.9180161 · DOI
  92. 10.18653/v1/w17-1418 · DOI
  93. Vicente, M, 2018, Interactions Between Computational Intelligence and Mathematics Part 2
  94. 10.18653/v1/p17-2076 · DOI
  95. 10.1145/3078714.3078742 · DOI
  96. 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
  97. 10.1007/978-3-319-60240-0_4 · DOI
  98. 10.1145/3308558.3313684 · DOI
  99. 10.1145/3388142.3388145 · DOI
  100. 10.18653/v1/w17-2912 · DOI
  101. 10.18653/v1/w18-1114 · DOI
  102. 10.1007/978-3-319-51811-4_42 · DOI
  103. 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab042 · DOI
  104. 10.1371/journal.pone.0226248 · DOI · Paper page
  105. 10.4054/demres.2017.37.46 · DOI
  106. 10.2196/26482 · DOI
  107. Zhao, Y, 2020, AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc, 730
  108. 10.48550/arXiv.1710.11048 · DOI
  109. 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
  110. 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
  111. 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
  112. 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
  113. 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
  114. 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
  115. BurgerJDHendersonJKimGZarrellaGDiscriminating gender on TwitterProceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language ProcessingEMNLP 2011July 27-31, 2011Edinburgh, UK
  116. 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
  117. 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
  118. 10.18653/v1/w15-2913 · DOI
  119. 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
  120. 10.1109/bigdata.2017.8258555 · DOI
  121. 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
  122. 10.18653/v1/w16-5614 · DOI
  123. 10.3115/v1/p14-1018 · DOI
  124. 10.3115/v1/d14-1121 · DOI
  125. 10.1109/iccvw.2013.58 · DOI
  126. 10.18653/v1/2021.socialnlp-1.11 · DOI
  127. 10.1007/s11263-016-0940-3 · DOI
  128. 10.1073/pnas.2211613120 · DOI
  129. 10.1007/s11357-013-9510-6 · DOI
  130. 10.1016/j.cger.2012.01.007 · DOI
  131. 10.18653/v1/w18-5904 · DOI
  132. 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31561-0 · DOI · Paper page
  133. 10.1371/journal.pone.0262087 · DOI
  134. 10.5153/sro.3001 · DOI
  135. 10.1177/2056305117698981 · DOI
  136. 10.1609/icwsm.v12i1.15058 · DOI
  137. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.005 · DOI · Paper page
  138. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.021 · DOI
  139. 10.1371/journal.pone.0090113 · DOI
  140. 10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_1179_21 · DOI
  141. 10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.146 · DOI
  142. 10.1016/j.media.2020.101759 · DOI
  143. 10.2196/jmir.7081 · DOI
  144. 10.1177/0038038517708140 · DOI · Paper page
  145. 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
  146. Valdez, R, 2019, Social Web and Health Research
  147. 10.18653/v1/w17-1612 · DOI · Paper page
  148. 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)
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2024-03-15
Volume
26
Pages
e47923
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392847366
Cited by
10
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4
FWCI
0.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
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