Distorted science communication harms individuals and society as it can lead to unhealthy behavior change and decrease trust in scientific institutions. Given the rapidly increasing volume of science communication in recent years, a fine-grained understanding of how findings from scientific publications are reported to the general public, and methods to detect distortions from the original work automatically, are crucial. Prior work focused on individual aspects of distortions or worked with unpaired data. In this work, we make three foundational contributions towards addressing this problem: (1) annotating 1,600 instances of scientific findings from academic papers paired with corresponding findings as reported in news articles and tweets wrt. four characteristics: causality, certainty, generality and sensationalism; (2) establishing baselines for automatically detecting these characteristics; and (3) analyzing the prevalence of changes in these characteristics in both human-annotated and large-scale unlabeled data. Our results show that scientific findings frequently undergo subtle distortions when reported. Tweets distort findings more often than science news reports. Detecting fine-grained distortions automatically poses a challenging task. In our experiments, fine-tuned task-specific models consistently outperform few-shot LLM prompting.

The statement “The earth is flat” is factually inaccurate, but if someone truly believes and argues in its favor, it is not deceptive. Research on deception detection and fact checking often conflates factual accuracy with the truthfulness of statements. This assumption makes it difficult to (a) study subtle distinctions and interactions between the two and (b) gauge their effects on downstream tasks. The belief-based deception framework disentangles these properties by defining texts as deceptive when there is a mismatch between what people say and what they truly believe. In this study, we assess if presumed patterns of deception generalize to German language texts. We test the effectiveness of computational models in detecting deception using an established corpus of belief-based argumentation. Finally, we gauge the impact of deception on the downstream task of fact checking and explore if this property confounds verification models. Surprisingly, our analysis finds no correlation with established cues of deception. Previous work claimed that computational models can outperform humans in deception detection accuracy, however, our experiments show that both traditional and state-of-the-art models struggle with the task, performing no better than random guessing. For fact checking, we find that natural language inference-based verification performs worse on non-factual and deceptive content, while prompting large language models for the same task is less sensitive to these properties.

Verifying biomedical claims fails if no evidence can be discovered. In these cases, the fact-checking verdict remains unknown and the claim is unverifiable. To improve this situation, we have to understand if there are any claim properties that impact its verifiability. In this work we assume that entities and relations define the core variables in a biomedical claim’s anatomy and analyze if their properties help us to differentiate verifiable from unverifiable claims. In a study with trained annotation experts we prompt them to find evidence for biomedical claims, and observe how they refine search queries for their evidence search. This leads to the first corpus for scientific fact verification annotated with subject–relation–object triplets, evidence documents, and fact-checking verdicts (the BEAR-FACT corpus). We find (1) that discovering evidence for negated claims (e.g., X–does-not-cause–Y) is particularly challenging. Further, we see that annotators process queries mostly by adding constraints to the search and by normalizing entities to canonical names. (2) We compare our in-house annotations with a small crowdsourcing setting where we employ both medical experts and laypeople. We find that domain expertise does not have a substantial effect on the reliability of annotations. Finally, (3), we demonstrate that it is possible to reliably estimate the success of evidence retrieval purely from the claim text (.82F₁), whereas identifying unverifiable claims proves more challenging (.27F₁)

Many individuals affected by Social Anxiety Disorder turn to social media platforms to share their experiences and seek advice. This includes discussing the potential benefits of engaging with outdoor environments. As part of #SMM4H 2024, Shared Task 3 focuses on classifying the effects of outdoor spaces on social anxiety symptoms in Reddit posts. In our contribution to the task, we explore the effectiveness of domain-specific models (trained on social media data – SocBERT) against general domain models (trained on diverse datasets – BERT, RoBERTa, GPT-3.5) in predicting the sentiment related to outdoor spaces. Further, we assess the benefits of augmenting sparse human-labeled data with synthetic training instances and evaluate the complementary strengths of domain-specific and general classifiers using an ensemble model. Our results show that (1) fine-tuning small, domain-specific models generally outperforms large general language models in most cases. Only one large language model (GPT-4) exhibits performance comparable to the fine-tuned models (52% F1). Further, we find that (2) synthetic data does improve the performance of fine-tuned models in some cases, and (3) models do not appear to complement each other in our ensemble setup.

If a person firmly believes in a non-factual statement, such as “The Earth is flat”, and argues in its favor, there is no inherent intention to deceive. As the argumentation stems from genuine belief, it may be unlikely to exhibit the linguistic properties associated with deception or lying. This interplay of factuality, personal belief, and intent to deceive remains an understudied area. Disentangling the influence of these variables in argumentation is crucial to gain a better understanding of the linguistic properties attributed to each of them. To study the relation between deception and factuality, based on belief, we present the DeFaBel corpus, a crowd-sourced resource of belief-based deception. To create this corpus, we devise a study in which participants are instructed to write arguments supporting statements like “eating watermelon seeds can cause indigestion”, regardless of its factual accuracy or their personal beliefs about the statement. In addition to the generation task, we ask them to disclose their belief about the statement. The collected instances are labelled as deceptive if the arguments are in contradiction to the participants’ personal beliefs. Each instance in the corpus is thus annotated (or implicitly labelled) with personal beliefs of the author, factuality of the statement, and the intended deceptiveness. The DeFaBel corpus contains 1031 texts in German, out of which 643 are deceptive and 388 are non-deceptive. It is the first publicly available corpus for studying deception in German. In our analysis, we find that people are more confident in the persuasiveness of their arguments when the statement is aligned with their belief, but surprisingly less confident when they are generating arguments in favor of facts. The DeFaBel corpus can be obtained from https://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/data/defabel .

Existing fact-checking models for biomedical claims are typically trained on synthetic or well-worded data and hardly transfer to social media content. This mismatch can be mitigated by adapting the social media input to mimic the focused nature of common training claims. To do so, Wührl and Klinger (2022a) propose to extract concise claims based on medical entities in the text. However, their study has two limitations: First, it relies on gold-annotated entities. Therefore, its feasibility for a real-world application cannot be assessed since this requires detecting relevant entities automatically. Second, they represent claim entities with the original tokens. This constitutes a terminology mismatch which potentially limits the fact-checking performance. To understand both challenges, we propose a claim extraction pipeline for medical tweets that incorporates named entity recognition and terminology normalization via entity linking. We show that automatic NER does lead to a performance drop in comparison to using gold annotations but the fact-checking performance still improves considerably over inputting the unchanged tweets. Normalizing entities to their canonical forms does, however, not improve the performance.

During the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, large volumes of biomedical information concerning this new disease have been published on social media. Some of this information can pose a real danger, particularly when false information is shared, for instance recommendations how to treat diseases without professional medical advice. Therefore, automatic fact-checking resources and systems developed specifically for medical domain are crucial. While existing fact-checking resources cover COVID-19 related information in news or quantify the amount of misinformation in tweets, there is no dataset providing fact-checked COVID-19 related Twitter posts with detailed annotations for biomedical entities, relations and relevant evidence. We contribute CoVERT, a fact-checked corpus of tweets with a focus on the domain of biomedicine and COVID-19 related (mis)information. The corpus consists of 300 tweets, each annotated with named entities and relations. We employ a novel crowdsourcing methodology to annotate all tweets with fact-checking labels and supporting evidence, which crowdworkers search for online. This methodology results in substantial inter-annotator agreement. Furthermore, we use the retrieved evidence extracts as part of a fact-checking pipeline, finding that the real-world evidence is more useful than the knowledge directly available in pretrained language models.

Text mining and information extraction for the medical domain has focused on scientific text generated by researchers. However, their access to individual patient experiences or patient-doctor interactions is limited. On social media, doctors, patients and their relatives also discuss medical information. Individual information provided by laypeople complements the knowledge available in scientific text. It reflects the patient’s journey making the value of this type of data twofold: It offers direct access to people’s perspectives, and it might cover information that is not available elsewhere, including self-treatment or self-diagnose. Named entity recognition and relation extraction are methods to structure information that is available in unstructured text. However, existing medical social media corpora focused on a comparably small set of entities and relations. In contrast, we provide rich annotation layers to model patients’ experiences in detail. The corpus consists of medical tweets annotated with a fine-grained set of medical entities and relations between them, namely 14 entity (incl. environmental factors, diagnostics, biochemical processes, patients’ quality-of-life descriptions, pathogens, medical conditions, and treatments) and 20 relation classes (incl. prevents, influences, interactions, causes). The dataset consists of 2,100 tweets with approx. 6,000 entities and 2,200 relations.

False medical information on social media poses harm to people’s health. While the need for biomedical fact-checking has been recognized in recent years, user-generated medical content has received comparably little attention. At the same time, models for other text genres might not be reusable, because the claims they have been trained with are substantially different. For instance, claims in the SciFact dataset are short and focused: “Side effects associated with antidepressants increases risk of stroke”. In contrast, social media holds naturally-occurring claims, often embedded in additional context: "‘If you take antidepressants like SSRIs, you could be at risk of a condition called serotonin syndrome’ Serotonin syndrome nearly killed me in 2010. Had symptoms of stroke and seizure.” This showcases the mismatch between real-world medical claims and the input that existing fact-checking systems expect. To make user-generated content checkable by existing models, we propose to reformulate the social-media input in such a way that the resulting claim mimics the claim characteristics in established datasets. To accomplish this, our method condenses the claim with the help of relational entity information and either compiles the claim out of an entity-relation-entity triple or extracts the shortest phrase that contains these elements. We show that the reformulated input improves the performance of various fact-checking models as opposed to checking the tweet text in its entirety.

Social media contains unfiltered and unique information, which is potentially of great value, but, in the case of misinformation, can also do great harm. With regards to biomedical topics, false information can be particularly dangerous. Methods of automatic fact-checking and fake news detection address this problem, but have not been applied to the biomedical domain in social media yet. We aim to fill this research gap and annotate a corpus of 1200 tweets for implicit and explicit biomedical claims (the latter also with span annotations for the claim phrase). With this corpus, which we sample to be related to COVID-19, measles, cystic fibrosis, and depression, we develop baseline models which detect tweets that contain a claim automatically. Our analyses reveal that biomedical tweets are densely populated with claims (45 % in a corpus sampled to contain 1200 tweets focused on the domains mentioned above). Baseline classification experiments with embedding-based classifiers and BERT-based transfer learning demonstrate that the detection is challenging, however, shows acceptable performance for the identification of explicit expressions of claims. Implicit claim tweets are more challenging to detect.