Dataset Information

Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: How many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?

ABSTRACT: The microbiome is a matter of interest for science, consumers and business. Our objective is to quantify that interest in academic journals and newspapers, both quantitatively and by study design. We calculated the number of articles on the microbiome from the total number of biomedicine articles featured in both PubMed and Spanish science news agency SINC, from 2008 to 2018. We used the Factiva database to identify news stories on microbiome papers in three general newspapers (The New York Times, The Times and El País) and three business newspapers (The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and Expansión), from 2007 to 2019. Then, we compared news stories with microbiome papers in PubMed, while also analyzing the frequencies of five study design types, both in the newspapers and in the papers themselves. Microbiome papers represented 0.8% of biomedicine papers in PubMed from 2008 to 2018 (increasing from 0.4% to 1.4%), while microbiome news published by SINC represented 1.6% of total biomedical news stories during the same period (increasing from 0.2% to 2.2%). The number of news stories on microbiome papers correlated with the number of microbiome papers (0.91, p < 0.001) featured in general newspapers, but not in business ones. News stories on microbiome papers represented 78.9% and 42.7% of all microbiome articles in general and business newspapers, respectively. Both media outlet types tended to over-report observational studies in humans while under-reporting environmental studies, while the representation of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials and animal/laboratory studies was similar when comparing newspapers and PubMed. The microbiome is receiving increasing attention in academic journals and newspapers. News stories on the microbiome in general and business newspapers are mostly based on research findings and are more interested in observational studies in humans and less in environmental studies compared to PubMed.

SUBMITTER: Prados-Bo A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8034714 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective"Diagnostic yield," also referred to as the detection rate, is a parameter positioned between diagnostic accuracy and diagnosis-related patient outcomes in research studies that assess diagnostic tests. Unfamiliarity with the term may lead to incorrect usage and delivery of information. Herein, we evaluate the level of proper use of the term "diagnostic yield" and its related parameters in articles published in Radiology and Korean Journal of Radiology (KJR).Materials and methodsPotentially relevant articles published since 2012 in these journals were identified using MEDLINE and PubMed Central databases. The initial search yielded 239 articles. We evaluated whether the correct definition and study setting of "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate" were used and whether the articles also reported companion parameters for false-positive results. We calculated the proportion of articles that correctly used these parameters and evaluated whether the proportion increased with time (2012-2016 vs. 2017-2022).ResultsAmong 39 eligible articles (19 from Radiology and 20 from KJR), 17 (43.6%; 11 from Radiology and 6 from KJR) correctly defined "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate." The remaining 22 articles used "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate" with incorrect meanings such as "diagnostic performance" or "sensitivity." The proportion of correctly used diagnostic terms was higher in the studies published in Radiology than in those published in KJR (57.9% vs. 30.0%). The proportion improved with time in Radiology (33.3% vs. 80.0%), whereas no improvement was observed in KJR over time (33.3% vs. 27.3%). The proportion of studies reporting companion parameters was similar between journals (72.7% vs. 66.7%), and no considerable improvement was observed over time.ConclusionOverall, a minority of articles accurately used "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate." Incorrect usage of the terms was more frequent without improvement over time in KJR than in Radiology. Therefore, improvements are required in the use and reporting of these parameters.

Project description:BackgroundRapid identification of subject experts for medical topics helps in improving the implementation of discoveries by speeding the time to market drugs and aiding in clinical trial recruitment, etc. Identifying such people who influence opinion through social network analysis is gaining prominence. In this work, we explore how to combine named entity recognition from unstructured news articles with social network analysis to discover opinion leaders for a given medical topic.MethodsWe employed a Conditional Random Field algorithm to extract three categories of entities from health-related new articles: Person, Organization and Location. We used the latter two to disambiguate polysemy and synonymy for the person names, used simple rules to identify the subject experts, and then applied social network analysis techniques to discover the opinion leaders among them based on their media presence. A network was created by linking each pair of subject experts who are mentioned together in an article. The social network analysis metrics (including centrality metrics such as Betweenness, Closeness, Degree and Eigenvector) are used for ranking the subject experts based on their power in information flow.ResultsWe extracted 734,204 person mentions from 147,528 news articles related to obesity from January 1, 2007 through July 22, 2010. Of these, 147,879 mentions have been marked as subject experts. The F-score of extracting person names is 88.5%. More than 80% of the subject experts who rank among top 20 in at least one of the metrics could be considered as opinion leaders in obesity.ConclusionThe analysis of the network of subject experts with media presence revealed that an opinion leader might have fewer mentions in the news articles, but a high network centrality measure and vice-versa. Betweenness, Closeness and Degree centrality measures were shown to supplement frequency counts in the task of finding subject experts. Further, opinion leaders missed in scientific publication network analysis could be retrieved from news articles.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify how parents judge the credibility of online health news stories with links to scientific research.DesignThis qualitative study interviewed parents who read online stories about e-cigarettes and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination published by top-tier US news organisations. Researchers asked participants to describe elements of a story that influenced their judgement about content credibility. Researchers analysed transcripts using inductive and deductive techniques. Deductive analysis drew on cognitive heuristics previously identified as being used by the public to judge online health information. Inductive analysis allowed the emergence of new heuristics, especially relating to health.SettingThe US National Cancer Institute's Audience Research Lab in Maryland, in August-November 2018.ParticipantsSixty-four parents with at least one child between the ages of 9 and 17 residing in Maryland, Virginia, or the District of Columbia participated. Researchers randomly assigned 31 parents to the HPV vaccination story and 33 to the e-cigarette story.ResultsEvidence of existing heuristics, including reputation, endorsement, consistency, self-confirmation, expectancy violation and persuasive intent emerged from the interviews, with participants deeming stories credible when mentioning physicians (reputation heuristic) and/or consistent with information provided by personal physicians (consistency heuristic). Participants also described making credibility judgements based on presence of statistics, links to scientific research and their general feelings about news media. In relation to presence of statistics and links, participants reported these elements increased the credibility of the news story, whereas their feelings about the news media decreased their credibility judgement.ConclusionsParents used a constellation of heuristics to judge the credibility of online health news stories. Previously identified heuristics for online health information are also applicable in the context of health news stories. The findings have implications for initiatives in education, health communication and journalism directed towards increasing the public's engagement with health news and their credibility judgements.

Dataset Information

Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: How many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets