| Literature DB >> 28723959 |
Oliver Gruebner1, Sarah R Lowe2, Martin Sykora3, Ketan Shankardass4, S V Subramanian1, Sandro Galea5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disasters have substantial consequences for population mental health. Social media data present an opportunity for mental health surveillance after disasters to help identify areas of mental health needs. We aimed to 1) identify specific basic emotions from Twitter for the greater New York City area during Hurricane Sandy, which made landfall on October 29, 2012, and to 2) detect and map spatial temporal clusters representing excess risk of these emotions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28723959 PMCID: PMC5516998 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Percentages of emotions detected in Twitter tweets over the time of Hurricane Sandy between October 22 and November 1 2012.
The storm hit the greater New York City area on October 29 2012.
Fig 2Spatial distributions of geo-located Twitter tweets and percentages of emotions classified in quintiles at the census tract level in the greater New York City area between October 22 and November 1 2012.
Storm surge according to FEMA [59].
Fig 3Scan statistic results for the time frame October 22 and November 1 2012.
Circles indicate spatio-temporal clusters of excess risk of emotional reactions along with the time of emergence. Shaded areas within circles highlight geo locations of cluster-relevant tweets, with darker shading indicating higher densities. Storm surge according to FEMA [59].
Emotions classified by EMOTIVE (total N) and space-time scan statistic results.
Statistical significant space-time clusters (i.e. spatio-temporal concentration of risk) of each emotion were found by the can statistic and were ordered according to the significance of the signal. Hence, cluster one of a particular emotion is the most likely cluster of that basic emotion and marked in bold. Note that FP refers to a false positive as identified from the tweet text.
| Emotion (total N) | Cluster | Radius in km | Date of emergence | Number of days | Observed Cases | Expected | Relative Risk | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 1.1 | Oct 28 | 2 | 14 | 1.61 | 8.73 | <0.001 | |
| 3 | 4.1 | Oct 27 | 1 | 14 | 2.33 | 6.02 | <0.001 | |
| 4 | 0.02 | Nov 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.26 | 23.57 | <0.001 | |
| 2 | 7.6 | Oct 25 | 5 | 233 | 165.05 | 1.41 | <0.01 | |
| 3 | 1 | Nov 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.29 | 20.96 | <0.01 | |
| 2 | 3.9 | Oct 28 | 3 | 84 | 44.36 | 1.89 | <0.001 | |
| 3 | 6 | Oct 23 | 2 | 52 | 23.41 | 2.22 | <0.001 | |
| 4 | 2.1 | Oct 30 | 1 | 13 | 2.21 | 5.87 | <0.01 | |
| 5 | 16.5 | Oct 28 | 2 | 138 | 89.45 | 1.54 | <0.01 | |
| 2 | 8.9 | Oct 28 | 2 | 225 | 128.61 | 1.75 | <0.001 | |
| 3 | 11.7 | Oct 22 | 6 | 523 | 411.54 | 1.27 | <0.001 | |
| 4 | 3.9 | Oct 31 | 2 | 46 | 18.16 | 2.53 | <0.001 | |
| 5 | 1.6 | Oct 30 | 2 | 40 | 16.23 | 2.46 | <0.05 | |
| 2 | 0.2 | Oct 30 | 1 | 17 | 1.54 | 11.02 | <0.001 | |
| 3 | 0.1 | Oct 27 | 1 | 9 | 0.48 | 18.61 | <0.001 | |
| 4 | 1.4 | Oct 29 | 1 | 15 | 2.28 | 6.58 | <0.001 | |
| 5 | 16.1 | Oct 22 | 4 | 381 | 290.60 | 1.31 | <0.001 | |
| 6 | 0.2 | Oct 29 | 1 | 8 | 0.87 | 9.21 | <0.05 |