ScienceGuardians

ScienceGuardians

Did You Know?

ScienceGuardians is the 1st fully verified journal club

Attitudes towards mental health professionals in social media: infodemiology study

Authors: Harriet Battle,Miguel Ángel Álvarez-Mon,Francisco J. Lara-Abelenda,Rafael Perez-Araluce,Mariana Pinto da Costa
Journal: The British Journal of Psychiatry
Publisher: Royal College of Psychiatrists
Publish date: 2025-1-7
ISSN: 0007-1250 DOI: 10.1192/bjp.2024.261
View on Publisher's Website
Up
0
Down
::

The model’s sentiment F1-score is only 0.72 ….. That means nearly 30% of tweet classifications (positive/negative/neutral) are likely wrong. Given they report razor-thin margins (e.g., psychiatrist negative 36.10% vs positive 22.77%), this error rate completely undermines any claim about which perception dominates. You can’t confidently say negative “dominates” when your tool misclassifies 1 in 3 tweets.

– With an F1 of 0.72, how can you be certain the negative majority for psychiatrist isn’t just classification noise? A 13-point gap disappears fast if 30% of labels are wrong.
– Who labeled the 1500 training tweets, and what was their inter-rater reliability? If one person did it (likely, given author list), the ground truth is just one person’s opinion; not a valid gold standard.
– You excluded non-classifiable tweets. What percentage of total tweets were tossed, and could that bias results? For example, sarcastic or ambiguous tweets about psychiatrists might be harder to classify and systematically excluded.

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.