Title |
#InSituPathologists: how the #USCAP2015 meeting went viral on Twitter and founded the social media movement for the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology
|
---|---|
Published in |
Modern Pathology, January 2017
|
DOI | 10.1038/modpathol.2016.223 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
David Cohen, Timothy Craig Allen, Serdar Balci, Philip T Cagle, Julie Teruya-Feldstein, Samson W Fine, Dibson D Gondim, Jennifer L Hunt, Jack Jacob, Kimberly Jewett, Xiaoyin 'Sara' Jiang, Keith J Kaplan, Ibrahim Kulac, Rashna Meunier, Nicole D Riddle, Patrick S Rush, Jennifer Stall, Lauren N Stuart, David Terrano, Ed Uthman, Matthew J Wasco, Sean R Williamson, Roseann I Wu, Jerad M Gardner |
Abstract |
Professional medical conferences over the past five years have seen an enormous increase in the use of Twitter in real-time, also known as "live-tweeting". At the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) 2015 annual meeting, 24 attendees (the authors) volunteered to participate in a live-tweet group, the #InSituPathologists. This group, along with other attendees, kept the world updated via Twitter about the happenings at the annual meeting. There were 6,524 #USCAP2015 tweets made by 662 individual Twitter users; these generated 5,869,323 unique impressions (potential tweet-views) over a 13-day time span encompassing the dates of the annual meeting. Herein we document the successful implementation of the first official USCAP annual meeting live-tweet group, including the pros/cons of live-tweeting and other experiences of the original #InSituPathologists group members. No prior peer-reviewed publications to our knowledge have described in depth the use of an organized group to "live-tweet" a pathology meeting. We believe our group to be the first of its kind in the field of pathology.Modern Pathology advance online publication, 13 January 2017; doi:10.1038/modpathol.2016.223. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 63 | 43% |
Spain | 13 | 9% |
India | 5 | 3% |
United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
Mexico | 4 | 3% |
Canada | 4 | 3% |
Australia | 3 | 2% |
Colombia | 2 | 1% |
Turkey | 2 | 1% |
Other | 11 | 7% |
Unknown | 36 | 24% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 77 | 52% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 35 | 24% |
Scientists | 25 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 10 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 43 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 8 | 18% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 18% |
Researcher | 5 | 11% |
Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 9% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 9% |
Other | 8 | 18% |
Unknown | 7 | 16% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 59% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
Other | 3 | 7% |
Unknown | 10 | 23% |