| Literature DB >> 34250283 |
Atsushi Mizuno1,2,3,4, Jeffrey Rewley5, Takuya Kishi4,6, Chisa Matsumoto4,7, Yuki Sahashi4,8,9,10, Mari Ishida4,11, Shoji Sanada4,12, Memori Fukuda4,13, Tadafumi Sugimoto4,14, Miki Hirano4,15, Koichi Node4,16.
Abstract
Background: The relationship between Twitter ambassadors and retweets has not been fully evaluated for "tweet the meeting" activity. Methods andEntities:
Keywords: Ambassadors; Annual congress; Twitter
Year: 2021 PMID: 34250283 PMCID: PMC8258185 DOI: 10.1253/circrep.CR-21-0063
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Circ Rep ISSN: 2434-0790
Baseline Comparison of Retweet Metrics (of the Original Tweet) Between Japanese Circulation Society Twitter Ambassadors and Non-Ambassadors
| Influencer | Others | JCS Twitter | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 55 | 2,481 | 5,597 | |
| Year | <0.001 | |||
| 2019 | 7 (12.7) | 694 (28.0) | 1,346 (24.0) | |
| 2020 | 8 (14.5) | 630 (25.4) | 2,555 (45.6) | |
| 2021 | 40 (72.7) | 1,157 (46.6) | 1,696 (30.3) | |
| During the congress | 0.019 | |||
| Day 1 | 13 (23.6) | 683 (27.5) | 1,660 (29.7) | |
| Day 2 | 29 (52.7) | 950 (38.3) | 2,006 (35.8) | |
| Day 3 | 13 (23.6) | 848 (34.2) | 1,931 (34.5) | |
| No. retweets for each original tweet | <0.001 | |||
| Mean±SD | 6.38±12.64 | 2.59±3.05 | 3.14±4.32 | |
| Median [IQR] | 2 [1–5] | 2 [1–3] | 2 [1–4] | |
| No. retweets by influencers (≥10,000 followers) | 0.001 | |||
| 0 | 51 (92.7) | 2,443 (98.5) | 5,504 (98.3) | |
| 1 | 3 (5.5) | 36 (1.5) | 86 (1.5) | |
| 2 | 1 (1.8) | 2 (0.1) | 5 (0.1) | |
| 3 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (0.0) | |
| Guideline-related topic | 2 (3.6) | 147 (5.9) | 183 (3.3) | <0.001 |
| Twitter users’ follower categoriesA | <0.001 | |||
| Q1 | 0 (0.0) | 1,308 (52.7) | 1,377 (24.6) | |
| Q2 | 0 (0.0) | 776 (31.3) | 2,076 (37.1) | |
| Q3 | 55 (100.0) | 397 (16.0) | 2,144 (38.3) |
Unless indicated otherwise, data are given as n (%). ATwitter users were divided into tertiles based on the number of followers: Q1, <306 followers; Q2, 307–1,998 followers; Q3, ≥1999 followers. IQR, interquartile range; JCS, Japanese Circulation Society.
Centrality Measures Summary of the Retweet Network
| Influencer | JCS Twitter | Others | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 51 | 126 | 3,136 | |
| Degree centrality | <0.001 | |||
| Mean±SD | 9.47±19.33 | 61.69±80.07 | 3.02±6.83 | |
| Median [IQR] | 2.00 [1.00, 10.00] | 32.50 [16.00, 70.75] | 1.00 [1.00, 2.00] | |
| Closeness centrality (×1,000) | 0.188 | |||
| Mean±SD | 0.13±0.08 | 0.14±0.09 | 0.14±0.07 | |
| Median [IQR] | 0.13 [0.06, 0.14] | 0.13 [0.06, 0.15] | 0.13 [0.06, 0.22] | |
| Betweenness centrality | <0.001 | |||
| Mean±SD | 4,436.11±11,430.84 | 20,469.81±40,185.12 | 494.86±2,709.98 | |
| Median [IQR] | 1.00 [0.00, 2,383.40] | 5,409.64 [1,884.92, 18,078.33] | 0.00 [0.00, 39.26] | |
| Eigenvector centrality (×1,000) | <0.001 | |||
| Mean±SD | 4.61±10.26 | 150.10±212.14 | 3.97±15.76 | |
| Median [IQR] | 1.70 [0.48, 4.92] | 70.35 [34.33, 144.48] | 0.99 [0.18, 2.58] |
IQR, interquartile range; JCS, Japanese Circulation Society.
Figure.Retweet network in consecutive years: (A) 2019, (B) 2020, and (C) 2021. Nodes and edges were based on Twitter ID and retweet activity. Node size was based on the betweenness centrality. The text labels indicate the top 10-ranked users based on betweenness centrality.
Linear Regression Model for the Total Number of Retweets
| Log (total no. retweets) | Total no. retweets | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimates (95% CI) | RR (95% CI) | ||
| Original tweet by JCS Twitter Ambassadors | 0.08 (0.05, 0.12) | 1.09 (1.05, 1.12) | <0.001 |
| Year 2020 vs. 2019 | 0.45 (0.41, 0.49) | 1.58 (1.51, 1.64) | <0.001 |
| Year 2021 vs. 2019 | 0.3 (0.26, 0.34) | 1.35 (1.29, 1.4) | <0.001 |
| Day 2 vs. Day 1 | −0.02 (−0.06, 0.01) | 0.98 (0.94, 1.01) | 0.239 |
| Day 3 vs. Day 1 | −0.04 (−0.08, 0) | 0.96 (0.93, 1) | 0.041 |
| No. retweets by influencers | |||
| 1 vs. 0 (reference) | 1.27 (1.15, 1.39) | 3.55 (3.14, 4) | <0.001 |
| 2 vs. 0 (reference) | 2.22 (1.75, 2.69) | 9.22 (5.75, 14.77) | <0.001 |
| 3 vs. 0 (reference) | 2.85 (1.9, 3.79) | 17.24 (6.71, 44.26) | <0.001 |
| Guideline-related topic | 0.3 (0.23, 0.38) | 1.35 (1.25, 1.46) | <0.001 |
| Twitter users’ follower categoriesA | |||
| Q2 vs. Q1 | 0.03 (−0.01, 0.06) | 1.03 (0.99, 1.07) | 0.167 |
| Q3 vs. Q1 | 0.1 (0.06, 0.14) | 1.1 (1.06, 1.15) | <0.001 |
ATwitter users were divided into tertiles based on the number of followers: Q1, <306 followers; Q2, 307–1,998 followers; Q3, ≥1999 followers. CI, confidence interval; JCS, Japanese Circulation Society; RR, relative risk.