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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methods and Annotated Data Sets Used to Predict the Gender and Age of Twitter Users: Scoping Review (Preprint)

Open access
O'Connor, Karen, Golder, Su, Weissenbacher, Davy, Klein, Ari Z, Magge, Arjun, Gonzalez-Hernandez, Graciela·2023·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Preprint — published as 10.2196/47923 · Paper page

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. CLINICALTRIAL:

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/preprints.47923

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 114

  1. 10.1186/s12976-017-0074-5 · DOI
  2. 10.1101/2020.12.15.20248229 · DOI
  3. 10.1093/jamia/ocu041 · DOI
  4. 10.1007/s11606-020-05988-8 · DOI
  5. 10.1109/cibcb.2019.8791452 · DOI
  6. 10.15288/jsad.2012.73.834 · DOI
  7. 10.31235/osf.io/qx7s2 · DOI
  8. 10.7717/peerjcs.1047/fig-3 · DOI
  9. 10.1038/s41467-021-24265-8 · DOI
  10. 10.1038/s41586-019-1657-6 · DOI
  11. 10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14168 · DOI
  12. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207112 · DOI
  13. 10.2196/25736 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1609/icwsm.v6i1.14320 · DOI
  15. 10.1145/2492517.2492632 · DOI
  16. 10.1109/ictai.2016.0048 · DOI
  17. 10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9204 · DOI
  18. 10.1371/journal.pone.0115545 · DOI
  19. 10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14381 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.5040/9781474284974.00399 · DOI
  21. 10.7326/m18-0850 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1136/emermed-2020-209567 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.4073/cmg.2016.1 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1002/9781119536604.ch4 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1017/s0266462310000966 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/hir.12313 · DOI
  28. 10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1007/978-3-030-21158-5_25 · DOI
  30. 10.1007/978-3-319-58562-8_26 · DOI
  31. 10.1109/iciss50791.2020.9307598 · DOI
  32. 10.1109/icdmw.2017.144 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/s13278-017-0478-6 · DOI
  34. 10.1145/3389189.3397992 · DOI
  35. 10.1007/978-3-319-72926-8_28 · DOI
  36. 10.1007/s42001-019-00061-9 · DOI
  37. 10.13053/cys-22-3-3036 · DOI
  38. 10.1007/978-3-030-20521-8_51 · DOI
  39. 10.1177/0890117116686574 · DOI
  40. 10.1371/journal.pone.0207506 · DOI
  41. 10.1057/s41599-019-0314-x · DOI
  42. 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000567 · DOI
  43. 10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14894 · DOI
  44. 10.1007/978-3-319-71273-4_16 · DOI
  45. 10.1007/978-3-030-04179-3_10 · DOI
  46. 10.1145/3443279.3443300 · DOI
  47. 10.1109/asonam49781.2020.9381379 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.eij.2020.04.001 · DOI
  49. 10.18653/v1/w17-4407 · DOI
  50. 10.3390/app10175957 · DOI
  51. 10.1109/wacvw.2017.8 · DOI
  52. 10.1109/ivmspw.2018.8448788 · DOI
  53. 10.1109/access.2017.2706674 · DOI
  54. 10.18653/v1/w17-2901 · DOI
  55. 10.1007/s12525-019-00336-z · DOI
  56. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024018 · DOI
  57. 10.1016/j.eij.2018.12.002 · DOI
  58. 10.1007/978-3-319-67256-4_43 · DOI
  59. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.04.013 · DOI
  60. 10.13053/cys-22-4-3061 · DOI
  61. 10.18653/v1/p17-2075 · DOI
  62. 10.1109/eisic.2018.00022 · DOI
  63. 10.18653/v1/w17-2901 · DOI
  64. 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112909 · DOI · Paper page
  65. 10.1007/978-3-319-62428-0_9 · DOI
  66. 10.1145/3106426.3106472 · DOI
  67. 10.1145/3281375.3281383 · DOI
  68. 10.1371/journal.pone.0183537 · DOI
  69. 10.1145/3449181 · DOI
  70. 10.1007/s10257-016-0312-0 · DOI
  71. 10.1109/saupec/robmech/prasa48453.2020.9040955 · DOI
  72. 10.1109/iri.2018.00017 · DOI
  73. 10.1016/j.future.2019.08.018 · DOI
  74. 10.1109/dsaa49011.2020.00088 · DOI
  75. 10.1145/3078714.3078734 · DOI
  76. 10.2196/17196 · DOI
  77. 10.2196/16191 · DOI
  78. 10.1007/978-981-13-2414-7_36 · DOI
  79. 10.3145/epi.2020.may.01 · DOI
  80. 10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.509 · DOI
  81. 10.18653/v1/p18-2061 · DOI
  82. 10.1109/issc49989.2020.9180161 · DOI
  83. 10.18653/v1/w17-1418 · DOI
  84. 10.1007/978-3-030-01632-6_3 · DOI
  85. 10.18653/v1/p17-2076 · DOI
  86. 10.1145/3078714.3078742 · DOI
  87. 10.1007/978-3-319-60240-0_4 · DOI
  88. 10.1145/3308558.3313684 · DOI
  89. 10.1145/3388142.3388145 · DOI
  90. 10.18653/v1/w17-2912 · DOI
  91. 10.18653/v1/w18-1114 · DOI
  92. 10.1007/978-3-319-51811-4_42 · DOI
  93. 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab042 · DOI
  94. 10.4054/demres.2017.37.46 · DOI
  95. 10.2196/26482 · DOI
  96. 10.1101/2020.03.26.20038372 · DOI
  97. 10.48550/arXiv.1710.11048 · DOI
  98. 10.18653/v1/w15-2913 · DOI
  99. 10.1109/bigdata.2017.8258555 · DOI
  100. 10.18653/v1/w16-5614 · DOI
  101. 10.3115/v1/p14-1018 · DOI
  102. 10.3115/v1/d14-1121 · DOI
  103. 10.1109/iccvw.2013.58 · DOI
  104. 10.18653/v1/2021.socialnlp-1.11 · DOI
  105. 10.1007/s11263-016-0940-3 · DOI
  106. 10.1007/s11357-013-9510-6 · DOI
  107. 10.1016/j.cger.2012.01.007 · DOI
  108. 10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31561-0 · DOI · Paper page
  109. 10.1371/journal.pone.0262087 · DOI
  110. 10.5153/sro.3001 · DOI
  111. 10.1177/2056305117698981 · DOI
  112. 10.1609/icwsm.v12i1.15058 · DOI
  113. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.005 · DOI · Paper page
  114. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.021 · 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
2023-04-05
Volume
26
Pages
e47923-e47923
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392847366
Cited by
10
References
1
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