Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 21, 2025

Author Spotlight: A Pseudotype Virus System for Assessing Omicron Subvariants and Neutralizing Antibodies in SARS-CoV-2 Research
Published on: September 8, 2023
Quantifying Public Engagement With Science and Malinformation on COVID-19 Vaccines: Cross-Sectional Study
David Robert Grimes1,2, David H Gorski3,4
1TCD Biostatistics Unit, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Medical journals face growing public interest, but malinformation, or true facts used out of context, poses a public health risk. This study analyzed vaccine malinformation, finding it amplified by vaccine-negative accounts and conspiracy sites.
Area of Science:
- Medical Research
- Public Health Communication
- Digital Epidemiology
Background:
- Increasing public engagement with medical science necessitates understanding information propagation.
- The spread and impact of malinformation, particularly concerning COVID-19 vaccines, require investigation.
- Distinguishing malinformation from misinformation is crucial due to its subtle, harmful nature.
Purpose of the Study:
- To quantify public engagement patterns with medical research.
- To identify propagation vectors of a high-profile medical malinformation case.
- To analyze the sentiment and sources amplifying vaccine-related malinformation.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of a decade of altmetric data from 5 leading medical journals (approx. 9.8 million engagements).
- Tracking a specific COVID-19 vaccine malinformation paper with the highest altmetric score.
- Sentiment analysis of Twitter (X) engagement, contrasting with users' prior vaccine sentiment and analyzing citing sources.
Main Results:
- COVID-19 vaccine malinformation was significantly amplified by vaccine-negative Twitter accounts (OR 58.2, P<.001).
- Malinformation was frequently cited by conspiracy and non-news websites (39.2%), often repeatedly (28.2%).
- Amplification often leveraged the perceived prestige of medical journals.
Conclusions:
- Medical journals must address both overt misinformation and insidious malinformation.
- Public interest in medical science is rising, highlighting the need for vigilance.
- Strategies are needed for journals and communicators to mitigate malinformation's public health impact.
Related Concept Videos
Vaccinations
Steps in Outbreak Investigation
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Types of Skewness
For instance, in the middle of a pandemic, the geographical distribution of vaccine coverage may be positively skewed towards populations in the global north countries. However,...

