Kwanho Kim

Soojong Kim, Kwanho Kim, Claire Wonjeong Jo

Objective. Vaccination has engendered a spectrum of public opinions, with social media acting as a crucial platform for health-related discussions. The emergence of artificial intelligence technologies, such as large language models (LLMs), offers a novel opportunity to efficiently investigate public discourses. This research assesses the accuracy of ChatGPT, a widely used and freely available service built upon an LLM, for sentiment analysis to discern different stances toward Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Methods. Messages related to HPV vaccination were collected from social media supporting different message formats: Facebook (long format) and Twitter (short format). A selection of 1,000 human-evaluated messages was input into the LLM, which generated multiple response instances containing its classification results. Accuracy was measured for each message as the level of concurrence between human and machine decisions, ranging between 0 and 1. Results. Average accuracy was notably high when 20 response instances were used to determine the machine decision of each message: .882 (SE = .021) and .750 (SE = .029) for anti- and pro-vaccination long-form; .773 (SE = .027) and .723 (SE = .029) for anti- and pro-vaccination short-form, respectively. Using only three or even one instance did not lead to a severe decrease in accuracy. However, for long-form messages, the language model exhibited significantly lower accuracy in categorizing pro-vaccination messages than anti-vaccination ones. Conclusions. ChatGPT shows potential in analyzing public opinions on HPV vaccination using social media content. However, understanding the characteristics and limitations of a language model within specific public health contexts remains imperative.

Soojong Kim, Kwanho Kim, Hye Min Kim

Machine learning methods are increasingly applied to analyze health-related public discourse based on large-scale data, but questions remain regarding their ability to accurately detect different types of health sentiments. Especially, Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained attention as a powerful technology, yet their accuracy and feasibility in capturing different opinions and perspectives on health issues are largely unexplored. Thus, this research examines how accurate the three prominent LLMs (GPT, Gemini, and LLAMA) are in detecting risk-promoting versus health-supporting sentiments across two critical public health topics: Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and heated tobacco products (HTPs). Drawing on data from Facebook and Twitter, we curated multiple sets of messages supporting or opposing recommended health behaviors, supplemented with human annotations as the gold standard for sentiment classification. The findings indicate that all three LLMs generally demonstrate substantial accuracy in classifying risk-promoting and health-supporting sentiments, although notable discrepancies emerge by platform, health issue, and model type. Specifically, models often show higher accuracy for risk-promoting sentiment on Facebook, whereas health-supporting messages on Twitter are more accurately detected. An additional analysis also shows the challenges LLMs face in reliably detecting neutral messages. These results highlight the importance of carefully selecting and validating language models for public health analyses, particularly given potential biases in training data that may lead LLMs to overestimate or underestimate the prevalence of certain perspectives.