Cited by 168Mental Health via WritingSchizophrenia research and treatmentAuthorship Attribution and Profiling

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Collaborative Approach to Identifying Social Media Markers of Schizophrenia by Employing Machine Learning and Clinical Appraisals

Open access
Birnbaum, Michael L, Ernala, Sindhu Kiranmai, Rizvi, Asra F, De Choudhury, Munmun, Kane, John M·2017·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Linguistic analysis of publicly available Twitter feeds have achieved success in differentiating individuals who self-disclose online as having schizophrenia from healthy controls. To date, limited efforts have included expert input to evaluate the authenticity of diagnostic self-disclosures. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to move from noisy self-reports of schizophrenia on social media to more accurate identification of diagnoses by exploring a human-machine partnered approach, wherein computational linguistic analysis of shared content is combined with clinical appraisals. METHODS: Twitter timeline data, extracted from 671 users with self-disclosed diagnoses of schizophrenia, was appraised for authenticity by expert clinicians. Data from disclosures deemed true were used to build a classifier aiming to distinguish users with schizophrenia from healthy controls. Results from the classifier were compared to expert appraisals on new, unseen Twitter users. RESULTS: Significant linguistic differences were identified in the schizophrenia group including greater use of interpersonal pronouns (P<.001), decreased emphasis on friendship (P<.001), and greater emphasis on biological processes (P<.001). The resulting classifier distinguished users with disclosures of schizophrenia deemed genuine from control users with a mean accuracy of 88% using linguistic data alone. Compared to clinicians on new, unseen users, the classifier's precision, recall, and accuracy measures were 0.27, 0.77, and 0.59, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data reinforce the need for ongoing collaborations integrating expertise from multiple fields to strengthen our ability to accurately identify and effectively engage individuals with mental illness online. These collaborations are crucial to overcome some of mental illnesses' biggest challenges by using digital technology.

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/jmir.7956

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 36 references

5 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. McManus, K, 2015, AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc, 2015, 122
  2. Bishop, CM, 2006, Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
  3. CoppersmithGHarmanCDredzeMMeasuring post traumatic stress disorder in TwitterProceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media2014Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social MediaJun 1-4, 2014Ann Arbor, MI16

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–158 of 158

Metadata

Authors
Birnbaum, M. L., Ernala, S. K., Rizvi, A. F., De Choudhury, M., & Kane, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Northwell Health (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Birnbaum, Michael L
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2017-08-14
Volume
19
Issue
8
Pages
e289
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2748635631
Cited by
168
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
FWCI
20.76
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)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM112697)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
Keywords
schizophrenia, social media, Twitter, linguistic analysis, self-disclosure, authenticity assessment, clinical evaluation, human-machine collaboration, mental disorder detection, friendship, biological processes, online engagement
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Schizophrenia, Social Behavior, Social Support, Internet, 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