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 accessPreprint — 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.
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
Cites
Stansfield, C., Dickson, K., & Bangpan, M. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0371-9 · Cited by 122
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 114
- 10.1186/s12976-017-0074-5 · DOI
- 10.1101/2020.12.15.20248229 · 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
- 10.31235/osf.io/qx7s2 · DOI
- 10.7717/peerjcs.1047/fig-3 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-021-24265-8 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41586-019-1657-6 · DOI
- 10.1609/icwsm.v5i1.14168 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0207112 · DOI
- 10.2196/25736 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1609/icwsm.v6i1.14320 · DOI
- 10.1145/2492517.2492632 · DOI
- 10.1109/ictai.2016.0048 · DOI
- 10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9204 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0115545 · DOI
- 10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14381 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5040/9781474284974.00399 · DOI
- 10.7326/m18-0850 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/emermed-2020-209567 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4073/cmg.2016.1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/9781119536604.ch4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/s0266462310000966 · DOI
- 10.1111/hir.12313 · DOI
- 10.1186/s13643-015-0125-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/978-3-030-21158-5_25 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-319-58562-8_26 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1007/978-3-030-04179-3_10 · DOI
- 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
- 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
- 10.1007/978-3-030-01632-6_3 · DOI
- 10.18653/v1/p17-2076 · DOI
- 10.1145/3078714.3078742 · DOI
- 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
- 10.4054/demres.2017.37.46 · DOI
- 10.2196/26482 · DOI
- 10.1101/2020.03.26.20038372 · DOI
- 10.48550/arXiv.1710.11048 · DOI
- 10.18653/v1/w15-2913 · DOI
- 10.1109/bigdata.2017.8258555 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1007/s11357-013-9510-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cger.2012.01.007 · 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
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
- 2023-04-05
- Volume
- 26
- Pages
- e47923-e47923
- ISSN
- 1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10980991
- OpenAlex
- W4392847366
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 1
- 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