User-generated content on social media sites, such as health-related online forums, offers researchers a tantalizing amount of information, but concerns regarding scientific application of such data remain. This paper compares and contrasts symptom cluster patterns derived from messages on a breast cancer forum with those from a symptom checklist completed by breast cancer survivors participating in a research study.
Over 50,000 messages generated by 12,991 users of the breast cancer forum on MedHelp.org were transformed into a standard form and examined for the co-occurrence of 25 symptoms. The k-medoid clustering method was used to determine appropriate placement of symptoms within clusters. Findings were compared with a similar analysis of a symptom checklist administered to 653 breast cancer survivors participating in a research study.
The following clusters were identified using forum data: menopausal/psychological, pain/fatigue, gastrointestinal, and miscellaneous. Study data generated the clusters: menopausal, pain, fatigue/sleep/gastrointestinal, psychological, and increased weight/appetite. Although the clusters are somewhat different, many symptoms that clustered together in the social media analysis remained together in the analysis of the study participants. Density of connections between symptoms, as reflected by rates of co-occurrence and similarity, was higher in the study data.
The copious amount of data generated by social media outlets can augment findings from traditional data sources. When different sources of information are combined, areas of overlap and discrepancy can be detected, perhaps giving researchers a more accurate picture of reality. However, data derived from social media must be used carefully and with understanding of its limitations.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,429,163
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Quality of Life Research
#1,998
of 2,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,144
of 283,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality of Life Research
#43
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,846 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
