Introduction
Although the cannabis plant has been used as a medication for centuries, the use of cannabis was criminalized in the United States in 1937. However, beginning in the 1990s, a few states began allowing the medical use of cannabis even as the plant remained illegal at the federal level [1]. As more states introduced laxer cannabis policies, public interest in the medicinal properties of cannabis evolved to embrace cannabidiol (CBD). CBD is an active chemical found in variants of the cannabis plant that does not have the psychoactive side effects of the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) components of the cannabis plant [2].
In recent years, the utility of medical cannabis has grown as a major point of discussion in public policy, and especially in online social media discourse [3,4]. In particular, consumers have reported using CBD to treat various conditions, including epilepsy and other neurological disorders, insomnia, and some mental illnesses. CBD remains unregulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and has not been subjected to the same conclusive trials as most medications pertaining to its many specific uses. In fact, the FDA has only approved one cannabis-derived medication and three cannabis-related drugs to date—all of which require a prescription—and it has not approved marketing cannabis as a safe and effective drug for treating any disease [5]. Palmieri et al [6] reported promising results of CBD as a treatment for inflamed skin conditions and scars. There have also been many studies performed on CBD as a treatment for anxiety and sleep disorders [7-10], as a pain reliever [11-13], and as a treatment for cancer and cancer side effects [13-15].
Although most CBD-based medications and nutritional supplements have not demonstrated safety and efficacy for the numerous indications for which they are used, there are nevertheless many claims in public circulation regarding the effectiveness of CBD for a wide spectrum of ailments.
Social media serves as a primary location for viral CBD marketing and individuals sharing their experiences of personal use. Twitter, in particular, is a useful platform for understanding how cannabis, including CBD, is marketed to consumers and how individuals are using cannabis, as it provides a large corpus of both personal and commercial tweets [3]. Additionally, sentiment analysis can be used on personal and commercial CBD tweets to gauge user satisfaction for CBD treatment of particular medical conditions.
Thus, we propose a framework for the use of text mining in social networks that can help public health experts understand the landscape of personal and commercial claims and sentiments about unregulated substances such as CBD. There are two practical advantages to this framework. First, the data are readily available, easy to access, and inexpensive to use compared to administering surveys or utilizing data from governments and health providers. Second, public health researchers have already shown that sentiment analysis is an effective tool for understanding the public perception of drugs, diseases, and medical services as well as for detecting certain forms of depression [16-19].
To demonstrate the usefulness of this framework, we distinguished between tweets reflecting personal CBD use and tweets reflecting the sales, promotion, and commercialization of CBD. The two resulting corpora of tweets were analyzed for medical-related terms such as conditions, side effects, anatomical terminology, and use of other substances mentioned. This approach allowed us to identify terms that are being used in online CBD marketing in relation to the terms referenced by individuals taking CBD. In addition, we performed sentiment analysis on personal CBD tweets to gauge public opinion on the effectiveness of CBD in treating certain conditions. We were also able to use the Valence Aware Dictionary for Sentiment Reasoning (VADER) model to compute the sentiment of the personal and commercial CBD tweets making reference to specific medical conditions. The VADER sentiment model was used as it was specifically developed for analyzing sentiment on posts made on social network sites such as Twitter [20]. Since its development, VADER has been used to gauge sentiment on digital assistants among Twitter users, political tweets, as well as course evaluations [21-24]
Findings from this study will provide important information on public perceptions of CBD and how CBD is marketed through a social media platform. Misinformation has increased with the rise of social media. Recently, researchers have used social networks to analyze these concepts with regard to medical misinformation [25-28], which can contribute to negative health outcomes. For this reason, unverified claims overstating, exaggerating, and lying about CBD’s medical benefits have circulated freely on the internet, leading many to wonder how to assess the actual benefits (if any) of using CBD in medical contexts. Some of the conditions referenced in these claims include ear pain in infants, autism, attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, Parkinson disease, and Alzheimer disease [29]. By analyzing personal and commercial tweets about CBD using the adaptable and generalizable framework developed for this study, public health and medical professionals can more readily identify viral misinformation pertaining to CBD claims.
Methods
Framework Development
To build this framework, we collected tweets that make reference to “CBD” or “cannabidiol.” We then took a random sample of these tweets and labeled them as a personal CBD reference (true/false) or commercial CBD reference (true/false). Using these annotated tweets, we trained two binary text classifiers to separate the personal and commercial CBD tweets from the larger collection of tweets. Using these two corpora of tweets, we identified the most frequently occurring medically relevant terms (terms related to diseases, conditions, symptoms, body parts, other substances, cannabis, etc) and compared these term frequencies between the two corpora. Figure 1 provides a visual description of our framework from data collection through classification. We then computed the sentiment of the personal CBD tweets containing specific terms using the VADER model to assess the satisfaction of CBD for treating those conditions.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Workflow of Tweet collection and classification. API: application programming interface; CBD: cannabidiol.
Data Collection
We collected tweets from the Twitter public stream using the Tweepy Python package as an interface to the live Twitter stream, which provides access to approximately 1% of the public tweets as they are created. Our data collection ran from October 7, 2019, to January 26, 2020, and used the search terms “CBD” and “cannabidiol.” We selected this period as it represents the time when CBD had become popular. We restricted our collection to an approximate 3.5-month period so that we could collect a sufficient amount of tweets within a window of time to avoid potential concept drift within the data. We also set filters to collect tweets that were written in English and were original (ie, no retweets). We did not want to include retweets as the actual contents of these tweets are linked to another author and are nearly identical in text to an existing tweet. For each tweet collected, we kept the full-length tweet text, the ID of the tweet, the time the tweet was created, and the Twitter user that authored the tweet. The resulting collection consisted of a data set of 567,850 tweets.
Tweet Annotation
To identify the personal and commercial-related CBD tweets from our collection of 567,850 tweets, we built two binary classifiers trained on a sample of 5496 tweets. This sample of tweets was obtained by taking a 6000-tweet sample from our collection and removing entries with verbatim duplicate tweets. The process of annotating the personal CBD tweets consisted of evaluating each tweet in the sample as to whether or not it was posted from an individual (ie, not a “bot”) discussing the past, current, and/or future use of CBD. The process of annotating the commercial CBD tweets consisted of evaluating each tweet in the sample as to whether or not it was posted from an actual (ie, not a “bot”) nonnews entity selling, advertising, or promoting CBD. These classifiers were used to distinguish between personal and commercial CBD-related tweets. To train these classifiers, all tweets in the sample were manually labeled as either a personal CBD-related tweet or a nonpersonal CBD-related tweet, and either a commercial CBD-related tweet or a noncommercial CBD-related tweet, according to the content in their full text, which consisted of a maximum of 280 characters. Textbox 1 provides some examples of the personal and commercial CBD-related tweets, and Textbox 2 provides some examples of the types of tweets referencing CBD that we encountered that were considered erroneous for both the personal and commercial CBD classes.
Examples of personal and commercial cannabidiol (CBD)-related tweets (paraphrased slightly for anonymity). CBC: cannabichromene.
Personal CBD-related tweets.
CBD products are so good for anxiety, and they don’t make you high
I’ve used CBD for anxiety. It is WAY healthier than taking benzodiazepines…I also use CBC for pain. You know what else is bad for your liver? Tylenol and Ibuprofen
Take some painkillers with sleeping aid like Tylenol or Advil PM or something…any CBD or weed maybe try that too
CBD gummies will not give you the high, but for me personally CBD oil edibles helped with anxiety and menstrual cramps
Commercial CBD-related tweets
Go Away!!!!Pain! We have a variety of CBD products for your needs.... Make sure to ask about our selection your next visit. URL
Over time, poor sleep can leave you feeling wrecked...Could CBD help? URL #cbd #cbdoil #hemp #cannabis #sleep #insomnia
Chronic Fatigue...Cannabis CBD THC oil – URL
Our CBD cream combines the relief potential of arnica and natural menthol oil with cocoa butter and the scents of eucalyptus & lavender
Textbox 1. Examples of personal and commercial cannabidiol (CBD)-related tweets (paraphrased slightly for anonymity). CBC: cannabichromene.
Examples of erroneous tweets (paraphrased slightly for anonymity). CBC: cannabichromene; CBD: cannabidiol; FDA: Food and Drug Administration; THC: tetrahydrocannabinol.
If you live where medical marijuana is legal, get paid $3k a month to critique weed, CBD, edibles and more URL
The FDA is worried about CBD. Should you be concerned? URL
This room is half the size of my cbd apartment...
Flinders Street in Melbourne’s CBD has been re-opened following an earlier protest....Thanks for your patience during this disruption. #victraffic
Textbox 2. Examples of erroneous tweets (paraphrased slightly for anonymity). CBC: cannabichromene; CBD: cannabidiol; FDA: Food and Drug Administration; THC: tetrahydrocannabinol.
Analysis of the manually annotated tweets indicated that the classes of personal and commercial CBD-related data sets were imbalanced; the nonpersonal CBD-related tweets occurred 7.7 times more than the personal CBD-related tweets, and the noncommercial CBD-related tweets occurred 10.2 times more than the commercial CBD-related tweets. To achieve a balance of the classes in the training set, we downsampled both of the positive classes in the training set by taking a random sample equivalent in size to the negative class. Table 1 and Table 2 show the class frequencies for the personal and commercial CBD-related tweet classes, respectively, prior to and following downsampling.
Table 1. Training set for personal cannabidiol (CBD) class counts.
| Class | Predownsampling, n | Postdownsampling, n |
| Personal CBD | 631 | 631 |
| Nonpersonal CBD | 4865 | 631 |
| Total | 5496 | 1262 |
Table 2. Training set for commercial cannabidiol (CBD) class counts.
| Class | Predownsampling, n | Postdownsampling, n |
| Commercial CBD | 489 | 480 |
| Noncommercial CBD | 45,007 | 489 |
| Total | 5496 | 978 |
Classification Training
Before training the binary classifiers to sort the full data set into personal and commercial CBD-related tweets, we preprocessed the text of the tweets by normalizing all URLs to one consistent string, removing special characters and English part of speech, converting all of the text to lowercase, and lemmatization. This preprocessing was performed to reduce the noise in the data, which would potentially impact the performance of our tweet classifiers. The binary classifiers were then trained on 80% (4396 of 5496) of the annotated sample and validated on the remaining 20% (1099 of 5496) of the annotated sample. We then created a matrix of the term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) features based on the words within tweets using a range of n-grams from 1 to 3, as well as a matrix of the TF-IDF features based on the characters within tweets using a range of n-grams from 3 to 6. The resulting matrices were stacked horizontally, which served as the input to our model for training the classifiers.
To train the two binary classifiers, we performed a 5-fold cross-validation grid search using a logistic regression model to find the optimal combination of parameters. The range of parameters is shown in Table 3. After training the binary classifiers, we applied each model to the larger CBD corpora of tweets. To compensate for the small validation set due to the balancing, we performed an additional postclassification test on a random set of 500 unbalanced tweets from our collection to confirm that our models would perform well on real-world unbalanced data. This sample was annotated with the same approach as used for the training set, with the predicted result hidden. We will discuss classification in further detail within the Results section.
Table 3. Parameters used in text classification tuning with the logistic regression model.
| Parameter | Range |
| Penalty | {none,.l1.l2} |
| Regularization parameter | xk=10a+(b-a)(k-1)/(n-1), k=1,…n; a=0; b=5; n=20 |
| Solver | {newton-cg, lbfgs, liblinear, sag, saga} |
Term Analysis
To track the medical terminology referenced in the sorted commercial and personal CBD tweets, we computed the term frequencies of the top 1000 words in both corpora of tweets. We then confirmed whether these terms were related to relevant medical conditions, medical symptoms, body parts, and/or other medications/substances by referencing standard English, medical (Systemized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms [SNOMED CT]), and slang dictionaries. We categorized the terms into three groups: health/medical, cannabis-related terms, and other substances. Within the health/medical group, we included terms related to diseases, aliments, symptoms, and body parts. We applied the same logic to the terms that appeared to be hashtags by examining the individual words that formed the hashtag for relevancy. We grouped cannabis-related terms together and separated them from the other substances group since there seemed to be an overlap of CBD- and THC-related tweets, both of which referenced the broader cannabis plant; we included cannabis-related slang terms as well as foods that are commonly associated with cannabis infusion (eg, gummies, honey). The other substances group included terms that refer to any other drug or medication. There were a few instances of words being included in multiple groups. For instance, “high” is a side effect of cannabis but is a term commonly used in both cannabis and CBD tweets. Additionally, we considered terms that may represent side effects caused by taking a substance, especially terms commonly associated with cannabis. Finally, we compared the overall frequency of the top occurring terms relative to their frequency in either the personal or commercial class of tweets, and produced a visualization of relevant term frequencies. We used the Scattertext Python package to generate a graphical representation of the frequencies within the personal and commercial CBD classes for each of the three term groups [30].
Sentiment Analysis
We used the VADER model to compute the sentiment of the personal and commercial CBD tweets that reference specific medical conditions. Since this sentiment model incorporates punctuation and text capitalization into computing sentiment, we used the raw tweet text as an input for the model. The VADER model produced a normalized score between –1 and +1 for each tweet based on the summation of the valence scores of each word in the tweet. We converted each tweet’s score into a 3-level categorical variable based on the threshold recommended by Hutto and Gilbert [20]: (1) positive sentiment, compound score≥0.05; (2) neutral sentiment, compound score > –0.05 and compound score < 0.05; and (3) negative sentiment, compound score ≤–0.05.
We then analyzed the distribution of the compound scores and sentiment class (positive, negative, neutral) in tweets containing terms related to specifically defined conditions and symptoms. Since the VADER model is partially based on a dictionary score and since many terms related to illness may influence the overall sentiment of a tweet (eg, pain, stress, cancer), as part of our analysis, we computed the VADER sentiment scores both with and without medical terms of interest, and compared the mean VADER scores using a t test to determine whether any individual term of interest biased the overall sentiment assigned to a tweet. The purpose of the t tests was to determine if there was a statistically significant difference in the sentiment conveyed in commercial CBD tweets containing certain terms versus the sentiment conveyed in personal CBD tweets referencing the same terms. For instance, the VADER sentiment score of “CBD really helps my pain” was –0.171 versus a VADER sentiment score of 0.4391 for “CBD really helps my,” where the word “pain” holds such a negative VADER sentiment score on its own that it is influencing the overall sentiment score of the tweet.
Ethics
This study leverages publicly available data and is registered as approved by the University of Louisville Institutional Review Board (approved protocol 20.1122).
Results
Classification
We trained the binary classification algorithms for the personal and commercial CBD tweets independently. In both the optimal personal CBD classifier (logistic regression: C=3.36, penalty=none, solver=“newton-cg”) and commercial CBD classifier (logistic regression=428.13, penalty=“l1”, solver=“saga”), we observed a decrease in classification performance between the smaller validation set derived from balanced data from the unbalanced sample. Despite this decrease in classification performance on the unbalanced data, both the personal and commercial CBD classification models were able to achieve area under receiver operating characteristic curve scores above 0.80. Table 4 and Table 5 show the performance of the personal and commercial CBD binary classifiers, respectively. When the personal CBD binary classifier was applied to the collection of tweets, it classified 167,755 tweets as personal CBD-related tweets. When the commercial CBD binary classifier was applied to the collection of tweets, it classified 143,322 tweets as commercial CBD-related tweets.
Table 4. Personal cannabidiol (CBD) logistic regression classifier performance metrics.
| Classification | Precision | Recall | F1 | Support | Accuracy | AUCa | |||
| Balanced sample | 0.85 | 0.86 | |||||||
| Nonpersonal CBD | 0.93 | 0.79 | 0.85 | 138 | |||||
| Personal CBD | 0.79 | 0.93 | 0.85 | 115 | |||||
| Unbalanced sample | 0.89 | 0.87 | |||||||
| Nonpersonal CBD | 0.94 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 367 | |||||
| Personal CBD | 0.78 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 133 | |||||
aAUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
Table 5. Commercial cannabidiol (CBD) logistic regression classifier performance metrics.
| Classifier | Precision | Recall | F1 | Support | Accuracy | AUCa | |||||||||
| Balanced sample | 0.89 | 0.89 | |||||||||||||
| Noncommercial CBD | 0.92 | 0.85 | 0.89 | 95 | |||||||||||
| Commercial CBD | 0.87 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 101 | |||||||||||
| Unbalanced sample | 0.87 | 0.82 | |||||||||||||
| Noncommercial CBD | 0.90 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 367 | |||||||||||
| Commercial CBD | 0.79 | 0.70 | 0.74 | 133 | |||||||||||
aAUC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.
Term Analysis
We generated unigram frequencies for both the personal and commercial corpora of tweets. We looked at the top 1000 occurring terms (excluding common English stop words) and manually checked if the terms were relevant to health; wellness; diseases; side effects; conditions; body parts; and/or references to other substances against standard English, medical, and slang dictionaries.
In other tweets making cannabis references (Figure 2), it seemed that THC-related terms were mentioned in both the personal and commercial corpora of tweets, with hashtags containing these references more frequently found in the commercial CBD tweets. The terms drink, melatonin, and pills were mentioned in the other substances group (Figure 3) in both the personal and commercial CBD tweets. Kratom and medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) were mentioned more frequently within the commercial CBD tweets and less frequently in the personal CBD tweets. References to alcohol occurred slightly more than average within the personal CBD tweets and below average in the commercial CBD tweets. Opioids were mentioned but only infrequently in both the personal and commercial CBD tweet classes. In the health and wellness group (Figure 4), pain, sleep, and anxiety occurred frequently in both the personal and commercial CBD classes. Terms related to fitness and nutrition were found more frequently in the commercial CBD tweets. Tweets referencing posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) occurred at the same average within both classes. Finally, CBD tweets referencing autism occurred more frequently than average in personal tweets, but infrequently in commercial tweets. This is despite the US FDA sending out warning letters to CBD sellers for disseminating misinformation by promoting CBD as a treatment for a variety of medical conditions, including autism [29].
Sentiment Analysis
We computed sentiment scores for both the commercial and personal CBD tweets that referenced any of the following 17 terms: anxiety, anxious, autism, calm, calming, cancer, depression, energy, fitness, pain, pains, PTSD, skin, sleep, stress, weight loss, and wellness. We also computed the term-level sentiment for each of these individual terms. Table 6 contains a list of the terms related to nonneutral sentiment and where the VADER score of the individual term might impact the sentiment score of the entire tweet. We calculated the sentiment for each personal and commercial CBD tweet referencing any of the 17 terms of interest, both in the original tweet text and with the term of interest removed. Using a t test to gauge any statistically significant difference in the mean sentient scores allowed us to assess how sentiments about the condition itself might affect the sentiment score.
Table 6. Medical-related terms with nonneutral sentiment.
| Term | VADERa compound score |
| anxiety | –0.1779 |
| anxious | 0.25 |
| calm | 0.3182 |
| calming | 0.4019 |
| cancer | –0.6597 |
| depression | –0.5719 |
| energy | 0.2732 |
| pain | –0.5106 |
| pains | –0.4215 |
| stress | –0.4215 |
aVADER: Valence Aware Dictionary for Sentiment Reasoning.
Tables 7-9 demonstrate a significant difference in the mean sentiment score in the personal CBD tweets with the term of interest versus that obtained without the term of interest for 11 of the 17 terms examined. There was a significant difference in the mean sentiment score in the commercial CBD tweets with the term of interest versus that obtained without the term of interest for 12 of the 17 terms examined. There was also a significant difference in the mean sentiment score in the commercial CBD tweets compared to that of the commercial CBD tweets with the term of interest for 11 of the 17 terms examined, both with and without the term of interest included. Table 8 indicates that although the sentiment was overall positive, in the instances where there was a significant difference in the sentiment scores between the personal and commercial CBD tweets, the mean sentiment score of the commercial CBD scores was higher than that of the personal CBD scores. Figure 5 and Figure 6 provide examples of how the distribution of the sentiment score changed when the term of interest (“pain”) was removed from the tweet.
Table 7. Personal and commercial cannabidiol (CBD) sentiment categorical counts.
| Term | Personal tweets | Commercial tweets | ||||||||||||||||
| n | With term | Without term | n | With term | Without term | |||||||||||||
| posa | neub | negc | pos | neu | neg | pos | neu | neg | pos | neu | neg | |||||||
| anxiety | 5353 | 2818 | 126 | 2409 | 3125 | 519 | 1718 | 2924 | 1564 | 44 | 1316 | 1726 | 352 | 846 | ||||
| anxious | 515 | 266 | 11 | 238 | 307 | 47 | 161 | 114 | 53 | 4 | 57 | 84 | 5 | 25 | ||||
| autism | 395 | 180 | 47 | 168 | 180 | 47 | 168 | 27 | 17 | 2 | 8 | 17 | 2 | 8 | ||||
| calm | 1224 | 1007 | 17 | 200 | 761 | 145 | 318 | 725 | 659 | 9 | 57 | 535 | 80 | 110 | ||||
| calming | 445 | 399 | 4 | 42 | 324 | 33 | 88 | 389 | 369 | 2 | 18 | 308 | 47 | 34 | ||||
| cancer | 986 | 230 | 19 | 737 | 530 | 111 | 345 | 246 | 76 | 0 | 170 | 122 | 44 | 80 | ||||
| depression | 568 | 164 | 17 | 387 | 307 | 31 | 230 | 326 | 69 | 8 | 249 | 178 | 19 | 129 | ||||
| energy | 507 | 416 | 9 | 82 | 334 | 57 | 116 | 444 | 421 | 7 | 16 | 357 | 52 | 35 | ||||
| fitness | 57 | 48 | 2 | 7 | 37 | 4 | 16 | 128 | 125 | 0 | 3 | 100 | 15 | 13 | ||||
| pain | 7432 | 2948 | 188 | 4296 | 4985 | 558 | 1889 | 6287 | 3262 | 113 | 2912 | 4956 | 591 | 740 | ||||
| pains | 394 | 157 | 11 | 226 | 225 | 19 | 150 | 311 | 168 | 9 | 134 | 219 | 11 | 81 | ||||
| ptsdd | 217 | 111 | 14 | 92 | 111 | 14 | 92 | 55 | 33 | 9 | 13 | 33 | 9 | 13 | ||||
| skin | 618 | 461 | 55 | 102 | 464 | 54 | 100 | 2516 | 2211 | 150 | 155 | 2229 | 136 | 151 | ||||
| sleep | 3761 | 2518 | 356 | 887 | 2517 | 356 | 888 | 2980 | 2129 | 322 | 529 | 2131 | 321 | 528 | ||||
| stress | 1012 | 560 | 18 | 434 | 713 | 45 | 254 | 1407 | 883 | 28 | 496 | 1100 | 36 | 271 | ||||
| weight loss | 8 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 24 | 18 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 3 | 3 | ||||
| wellness | 144 | 129 | 2 | 13 | 98 | 18 | 28 | 4216 | 4020 | 38 | 158 | 3106 | 814 | 296 | ||||
apos: positive sentiment.
bneu: neutral sentiment.
cneg: negative sentiment.
dptsd: posttraumatic stress disorder.
Table 8. Personal and commercial cannabidiol (CBD) sentiment score descriptive statistics (with and without the term).
| Term | Personal tweets | Commercial tweets | |||||
| n | With term, mean (SD) | Without term, mean (SD) | n | With term, mean (SD) | Without term, mean (SD) | ||
| anxiety | 5353 | 0.074 (0.573) | 0.186 (0.557) | 2924 | 0.118 (0.568) | 0.241 (0.538) | |
| anxious | 515 | 0.048 (0.591) | 0.203 (0.566) | 114 | 0.08 0 (0.566) | 0.254 (0.529) | |
| autism | 395 | –0.001 (0.546) | –0.001 (0.546) | 27 | 0.188 (0.557) | 0.188 (0.557) | |
| calm | 1224 | 0.448 (0.484) | 0.258 (0.540) | 725 | 0.616 (0.374) | 0.452 (0.467) | |
| calming | 445 | 0.608 (0.408) | 0.410 (0.508) | 389 | 0.695 (0.334) | 0.513 (0.444) | |
| cancer | 986 | –0.369 (0.571) | 0.158 (0.559) | 246 | –0.303 (0.638) | 0.167 (0.564) | |
| depression | 568 | –0.275 (0.573) | 0.122 (0.571) | 326 | –0.353 (0.506) | 0.111 (0.525) | |
| energy | 507 | 0.469 (0.492) | 0.324 (0.541) | 444 | 0.681 (0.331) | 0.547 (0.421) | |
| fitness | 57 | 0.429 (0.463) | 0.263 (0.514) | 128 | 0.633 (0.283) | 0.464 (0.400) | |
| pain | 7432 | –0.099 (0.605) | 0.293 (0.547) | 6287 | 0.088 (0.580) | 0.490 (0.440) | |
| pains | 394 | –0.098 (0.610) | 0.169 (0.577) | 311 | 0.087 (0.615) | 0.342 (0.553) | |
| ptsda | 217 | 0.037 (0.626) | 0.037 (0.627) | 55 | 0.200 (0.563) | 0.200 (0.563) | |
| skin | 618 | 0.420 (0.501) | 0.427 (0.501) | 2516 | 0.550 (0.371) | 0.568 (0.371) | |
| sleep | 3761 | 0.305 (0.522) | 0.305 (0.523) | 2980 | 0.392 (0.493) | 0.394 (0.493) | |
| stress | 1012 | 0.116 (0.632) | 0.360 (0.567) | 1407 | 0.234 (0.596) | 0.481 (0.396) | |
| weight loss | 8 | 0.289 (0.344) | 0.289 (0.344) | 24 | 0.436 (0.549) | 0.436 (0.549) | |
| wellness | 144 | 0.606 (0.431) | 0.384 (0.524) | 4216 | 0.720 (0.279) | 0.505 (0.426) | |
aptsd: posttraumatic stress disorder.
Table 9. Personal and commercial cannabidiol (CBD) sentiment score t test results (with and without term).
| Term | Personal with vs without term | Commercial with vs without term | Commercial vs personal with term | Commercial vs personal without term | ||||||||
| t | df | P value | t | df | P value | t | df | P value | t | df | P value | |
| anxiety | –10.31 | 10,704 | < .001 | –8.51 | 5846 | < .001 | –3.33 | 8275 | .001 | –4.28 | 8275 | < .001 |
| anxious | –4.29 | 1028 | < .001 | –2.39 | 226 | .02 | 0.53 | 627 | .59 | –0.88 | 627 | .38 |
| autism | 0.00 | 788 | > .99 | 0.00 | 52 | > .99 | –1.74 | 420 | .08 | –1.74 | 420 | .08 |
| calm | 9.15 | 2446 | < .001 | 7.40 | 1448 | < .001 | –8.06 | 1947 | < .001 | –8.04 | 1947 | < .001 |
| calming | 6.40 | 888 | < .001 | 6.49 | 776 | < .001 | –3.37 | 832 | .001 | –3.09 | 832 | .002 |
| cancer | –20.71 | 1970 | < .001 | –8.65 | 490 | < .001 | –1.59 | 1230 | .11 | –0.22 | 1230 | .83 |
| depression | –11.67 | 1134 | < .001 | –11.49 | 650 | < .001 | 2.06 | 892 | .40 | 0.29 | 892 | .77 |
| energy | 4.45 | 1012 | < .001 | 5.25 | 886 | < .001 | –7.68 | 949 | < .001 | –7.02 | 949 | < .001 |
| fitness | 1.81 | 112 | .07 | 3.92 | 254 | < .001 | –3.69 | 183 | < .001 | –2.88 | 183 | .004 |
| pain | –41.39 | 14,862 | < .001 | –43.82 | 12,572 | < .001 | –18.37 | 13,717 | < .001 | –23.02 | 13,717 | < .001 |
| pains | –6.32 | 786 | < .001 | –5.43 | 620 | < .001 | –3.98 | 703 | < .001 | –4.01 | 703 | < .001 |
| ptsda | –0.01 | 432 | .99 | 0.00 | 108 | > .99 | –1.77 | 270 | .08 | –1.76 | 270 | .08 |
| skin | –0.24 | 1234 | .81 | –1.76 | 5030 | .08 | –7.25 | 3132 | < .001 | –7.89 | 3132 | < .001 |
| sleep | 0.01 | 7520 | .99 | –0.12 | 5958 | .90 | –6.97 | 6739 | < .001 | –7.10 | 6739 | < .001 |
| stress | –9.12 | 2022 | < .001 | –11.98 | 2812 | < .001 | –4.65 | 2417 | < .001 | –5.60 | 2417 | < .001 |
| weight loss | 0.00 | 14 | > .99 | 0.00 | 46 | > .99 | –0.71 | 30 | .48 | –0.71 | 30 | .48 |
| wellness | 3.94 | 286 | < .001 | 27.38 | 8430 | < .001 | –4.72 | 4358 | < .001 | –3.35 | 4358 | .001 |
aptsd: posttraumatic stress disorder.
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. Distribution of sentiment scores of personal tweets referencing the term “pain.”.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Distribution of sentiment scores of commercial tweets referencing the term “pain.”.
There were instances of CBD tweets that offered a mix of both positive and negative sentiments within the personal tweets, such as in tweets referencing CBD’s relationship with autism. Figure 7 shows a more negative sentiment in the personal CBD tweets referencing autism. However, the sentiment of the personal tweets did not change when the term “autism” was removed. Despite being negative, the mean sentiment score of these tweets was –0.042, which is considered neutral by the authors of the VADER model. We observed a large amount of personal CBD tweets referencing the term “autism,” with 42.5% (168/395) of personal CBD tweets referencing autism classified as negative versus 45.6% (180/395) being classified as positive and 11.9% (47/395) classified as neutral.
Enlarge this image.Figure 7. Sentiment distribution of personal cannabidiol-related tweets referencing autism.
Textbox 3 shows tweets that our classifiers identified to be CBD-related that contained the word “autism.” These personal CBD tweets sometimes favored and sometimes disfavored CBD as a treatment for autism. In the commercial CBD tweets referencing autism, we observed both implicit and explicit claims regarding CBD’s ability to treat autism.
Our framework thus works well in contexts where the efficacy claims of medications and supplements are both validated and refuted.
Examples of personal and commercial tweets referencing cannabidiol (CBD) and autism (paraphrased slightly for anonymity).
Personal autism CBD tweets
@user @user He’s...on a thc/cbd tincture. It’s helped his autism beautifully
@user I use CBD for my C-PTSD [posttraumatic stress disorder] and the overstimulation that comes from Autism...it’s kinda hard to function...It works better than any antipsychotic I’ve ever been on.
I see a lot of ppl on my timeline...claiming CBD can “cure” autism is bad and so is anyone knowingly peddling the idea what is wrong with you people URL
@user @user @user if you work somewhere that lies about curing autism with cbd oil you should feel bad
Commercial autism CBD tweets
10 Best CBD Oils For Autism - URL 10-bestcbd-oils-for-autism-40/
CBD INFUSED … BOTTLES @ FRUIT PASTELS, THESE ARE IDEAL FOR KIDS WITH ADHD, AUTISM ETC #THECBDCHEMIST #GOODNIGHTSLEE
COMPANY_NAME® Announces Autism Hope Alliance Sponsorship URL #cannabis #hemp #cbd #vape #cbdoil #natural #anxiety #pain #stress #health #pharma #wellness #beauty #domains URL
People use CBD to treat everything from epilepsy and autism to chronic pain and anxiety. URL
Textbox 3. Examples of personal and commercial tweets referencing cannabidiol (CBD) and autism (paraphrased slightly for anonymity).
Discussion
Principal Findings
Text classification of tweets provides a means to segment tweets into defined groups at a large scale. We have demonstrated that we can do this with tweets related to CBD by using text classification to identify tweets that reflect personal usage of CBD and tweets that reflect the sales and/or commercialization of CBD. This classification of public social media data is useful because CBD has not been subjected to the same tests and clinical trials as modern medications, yet is currently being used to treat a variety of conditions without proof of safety or efficacy. Our analysis provided a methodology to identify the terms of interest that are frequently referenced in the commercial and personal corpora of CBD tweets, as well as a comparison of these term frequencies in relation to the document class (commercial or personal CBD). This allowed us to identify the medical conditions commonly referenced in both document classes at high frequencies, as well as terms that occur more frequently in one document class over the other. We also used the VADER model to analyze the sentiment of personal CBD tweets referencing certain medical conditions and symptoms. Despite the US FDA’s warnings regarding the marketing and promotion of CBD as treatment of autism and Alzheimer disease, while certainly not the most frequent conditions referenced, we did observe multiple instances of these tactics.
These methods and results speak to the recent efforts of researchers to use social networks to analyze the concept of misinformation in ways that are directly related to the potential problem of CBD misinformation. Ferrand et al [25] analyzed responses to queries from common digital assistants such as Siri, Alexa, and Google for misinformation regarding vaccines. Chen et al [26] collected social network posts from Weibo related to cancer and observed that 30% of posts contained misinformation. Ahmed et al [27] collected tweets referencing COVID-19 and 5G, and performed graph analysis to identify and analyze how misinformation was being disseminated online. Allem et al [3] observed unsubstantiated health claims related to cannabis on Twitter. More recently, Rovetta and Bhagavathula [28] also observed an abundance of COVID-19 misinformation in their analysis of tweets.
To address potential social media misinformation in the area of CBD, it is important to develop methods for gathering and classifying text corpora. Previous studies using the internet and social media have described the personal and commercial discourses about CBD. Narayanan et al [15] made use of internet-based data sources to examine CBD trends by examining Google searches, demonstrating that interest in CBD oil increased significantly from 2014 to 2018. Tran and Kavuluru [31] used CBD-related posts from Reddit and comments submitted to the FDA regarding these posts to examine the conditions that are commonly being treated by CBD. The researchers in this study examined both corpora of texts for medical conditions and methods of use in posts and comments using the term “CBD,” along with any indication of therapy implied in the two corpora.
There have also been nonmachine learning approaches to researching marijuana sentiment on Twitter, such as the work done by Nguyen et al [32]. Their study collected marijuana-related tweets, disregarded the tweets that were authored by less influential posters, manually annotated the marijuana tweets on a Likert scale via crowdsourcing, and segmented them by demographics applied to the data set through a proprietary service. The researchers observed more promarijuana attitudes among African Americans and youth/younger adults. In another example of a research approach that did not rely primarily on machine learning, Krauss et al [33] based their marijuana sentiment analysis on crowdsourced tweets. The researchers aimed to examine the preferences between marijuana and alcohol on Twitter. They collected tweets containing alcohol and marijuana references, and then annotated the tweets via crowdsourcing. The results showed that 54% of the tweets normalized marijuana and alcohol, 24% showed a preference for marijuana over alcohol, 2% showed a preference for alcohol over marijuana, 7% showed negative sentiment toward both alcohol and marijuana, and 13% demonstrated no sentiment toward either substance.
Our proposed framework extends the existing CBD research by further examining the perceptions of CBD in online discussions through a comparison of the terms and sentiment of tweets that reflect the personal use of CBD and tweets that reflect the sales and/or promotion of CBD. No other studies have attempted this type of comparative work, and this approach helped to examine which terms are being used proportionally or disproportionally, and to compare the sentiment of personal and commercial CBD tweets. Our methods can be applied to other types of research aimed at analyzing trends in the consumption and advertising of unregulated substances.
Conclusion and Future Work
The strengths of our framework are the ability to identify personal and commercial CBD tweets, associated conditions, and sentiment. However, some limitations should be noted. First, we limited our search to tweets referencing “CBD” and “cannabidiol.” Our preliminary research did not indicate that the topic of CBD is as subjected to slang terms as other forms of cannabis (eg, THC) and did not indicate that it was necessary to include additional related terms in the search [34]. Additionally, we limited our collection to tweets as Twitter is one of the world’s largest social networks that provides the ability to collect a large volume of data quickly. Second, our data were collected over an approximate 3-month period. Although the data collection period was relatively small, we were able to identify trends in personal and commercial CBD tweets that will be useful for future studies. Another limitation is the use of the dictionaries (standard, slang, and SNOMED-CT) for finding associated medical conditions. This step was based on checking high-frequency terms against dictionaries to determine medical relevancy. Future research could use deep neural network models to extract medical-related named entities from the tweets to automate and to possibly obtain context in which the medically related term is being used [35]. Finally, although we did not explicitly identify and remove social bots from our collection, as discussed by Himelein-Wachowiak et al [36], we did remove bots during the annotation process, as tweets that were possibly machine-generated were not considered personal or commercial CBD tweets.
We successfully used text classification to identify tweets making personal or commercial CBD references. When we applied two classifiers to the collection of tweets, we identified multiple medical conditions, body parts, symptoms, other substances, and cannabis references that were mentioned at high frequencies in both the personal and commercial CBD corpora, as well as conditions that were mentioned disproportionately in one corpora over the other. This suggests that CBD is being used and marketed for consistent types of ailments. Our sentiment analysis showed that the term of interest can indeed influence the sentiment score; when controlling for the term, 15 of 17 terms tested showed a positive sentiment within the personal CBD tweets and all 17 terms showed a positive sentiment within the commercial CBD tweets. This suggests that CBD, on the whole, is well-regarded in terms of its medical applications and that the commercial claims are not gross distortions of popular sentiment; however, we observed evidence where claims may have been exaggerated. We encourage future research to investigate the patterns in sentiment, usage, and sales of CBD as well as other forms of cannabis over time. Additionally, we recommend extending this proposed framework by further using text mining and machine learning methods to identify the dissemination of misinformation as it relates to CBD’s health and medical benefits.
Conflicts of Interest
None declared.
References
1. Aggarwal SK, Carter GT, Sullivan MD, ZumBrunnen C, Morrill R, Mayer JD. Medicinal use of cannabis in the United States: historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions. J Opioid Manag 2009 Jan 29;5(3):153-168. [
Aggarwal SK, Carter GT, Sullivan MD, ZumBrunnen C, Morrill R, Mayer JD. Medicinal use of cannabis in the United States: historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions. J Opioid Manag 2009 Jan 29;5(3):153-168.
Campos AC, Moreira FA, Gomes FV, Del Bel EA, Guimarães FS. Multiple mechanisms involved in the large-spectrum therapeutic potential of cannabidiol in psychiatric disorders. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2012 Dec 05;367(1607):3364-3378
Allem J, Escobedo P, Dharmapuri L. Cannabis surveillance with Twitter data: emerging topics and social bots. Am J Public Health 2020 Mar;110(3):357-362.
Pang RD, Dormanesh A, Hoang Y, Chu M, Allem J. Twitter posts about cannabis use during pregnancy and postpartum: a content analysis. Subst Use Misuse 2021;56(7):1074-1077.
FDA and cannabis: Research and Drug Approval Process. US Food and Drug Administration. 2020 Oct. URL: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-cannabis-research-and-drug-approval-process [accessed 2020-12-02]
Palmieri B, Laurino B, Vadalà M. A therapeutic effect of cbd-enriched ointment in inflammatory skin diseases and cutaneous scars. Clin Ter 2019;170(2):e93-e99
Linares IMP, Guimaraes FS, Eckeli A, Crippa ACS, Zuardi AW, Souza JDS, et al. No acute effects of cannabidiol on the sleep-wake cycle of healthy subjects: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Front Pharmacol 2018 Apr 5;9:315.
Masataka N. Anxiolytic effects of repeated cannabidiol treatment in teenagers with social anxiety disorders. Front Psychol 2019 Nov 8;10:2466.
Shannon S, Lewis N, Lee H, Hughes S. Cannabidiol in anxiety and sleep: a large case series. Perm J 2019;23:18-041
Skelley JW, Deas CM, Curren Z, Ennis J. Use of cannabidiol in anxiety and anxiety-related disorders. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2020;60(1):253-261.
Boyaji S, Merkow J, Elman RNM, Kaye AD, Yong RJ, Urman RD. The role of cannabidiol (CBD) in chronic pain management: an assessment of current evidence. Curr Pain Headache Rep 2020 Jan 24;24(2):4.
Johnson JR, Burnell-Nugent M, Lossignol D, Ganae-Motan ED, Potts R, Fallon MT. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of THC:CBD extract and THC extract in patients with intractable cancer-related pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2010 Feb;39(2):167-179
Überall MA. A review of scientific evidence for THC: CBD oromucosal spray (Nabiximols) in the management of chronic pain. J Pain Res 2020;13:399-410.
Kosgodage US, Mould R, Henley AB, Nunn AV, Guy GW, Thomas EL, et al. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a novel inhibitor for exosome and microvesicle (EMV) release in cancer. Front Pharmacol 2018 Aug 13;9:889.
Narayanan S, Lazar Neto F, Tanco K, Lopez G, Liu W, Bruera E, et al. Cannabidiol (CBD) oil, cancer, and symptom management: a Google trends analysis of public interest. J Altern Complement Med 2020 Apr 01;26(4):346-348
Tsugawa S, Kikuchi Y, Kishino F, Nakajima K, Itoh Y, Ohsaki H. Recognizing depression from Twitter activity. 2015 Presented at: CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; April 18, 2015; Seoul, Korea p. 3187-3196.
Carchiolo V, Longheu A, Malgeri M. Using Twitter data and sentiment analysis to study diseases dynamics. 2015 Presented at: ITBAM 2015: Information Technology in Bio- and Medical Informatics; September 3-4, 2015; Valencia, Spain.
Oscar N, Fox PA, Croucher R, Wernick R, Keune J, Hooker K. Machine learning, sentiment analysis, and tweets: an examination of Alzheimer's disease stigma on Twitter. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2017 Sep 01;72(5):742-751.
Abualigah L, Alfar HE, Shehab M, Hussein AMA. Sentiment analysis in healthcare: a brief review. In: Abd Elaziz M, Al-qaness M, Ewees A, Dahou A, editors. Recent Advances in NLP: The Case of Arabic Language. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 874. Cham: Springer; 2020:129-141.
Hutto C, Gilbert E. VADER: a parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. 2015 Presented at: 8th International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (AAAI); June 2014; Ann Arbor, MI.
Kirlić A, Orhan Z. Measuring human and Vader performance on sentiment analysis. Invent J Res Technol Engineer Manag 2017;1(12-4):42-46.
Elbagir S, Yang J. Twitter sentiment analysis using Natural Language Toolkit and VADER sentiment. 2019 Presented at: International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists (IMECS 2019); March 13-15, 2019; Hong Kong.
Newman H, Joyner D. Sentiment analysis of student evaluations of teaching. In: Penstein RC, editor. Artificial Intelligence in Education. AIED 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Volume 10948. Cham: Springer; 2018:246-250.
Park C, Seo D. Sentiment analysis of Twitter corpus related to artificial intelligence assistants. 2018 Presented at: 2018 5th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA); April 26-28, 2018; Singapore.
Ferrand J, Hockensmith R, Houghton RF, Walsh-Buhi ER. Evaluating smart assistant responses for accuracy and misinformation regarding human papillomavirus vaccination: content analysis study. J Med Internet Res 2020 Aug 03;22(8):e19018
Chen L, Wang X, Peng TQ. Nature and diffusion of gynecologic cancer-related misinformation on social media: analysis of tweets. J Med Internet Res 2018 Oct 16;20(10):e11515
Ahmed W, Vidal-Alaball J, Downing J, López Seguí F. COVID-19 and the 5G conspiracy theory: social network analysis of Twitter data. J Med Internet Res 2020 May 06;22(5):e19458
Rovetta A, Bhagavathula AS. Global infodemiology of COVID-19: analysis of Google web searches and Instagram hashtags. J Med Internet Res 2020 Aug 25;22(8):e20673
Kuehn BM. FDA, FTC warn companies claiming their supplements treat infertility. JAMA 2021 Jul 06;326(1):20.
Kessler J. Scattertext: a browser-based tool for visualizing how corpora differ. 2017 Presented at: Association for Computational Linguistics 2017, System Demonstrations; 2017; Vancouver, Canada.
Tran T, Kavuluru R. Social media surveillance for perceived therapeutic effects of cannabidiol (CBD) products. Int J Drug Policy 2020 Mar;77:102688
Nguyen A, Hoang Q, Nguyen H, Nguyen D, Tran T. Evaluating marijuana-related tweets on Twitter. 2017 Presented at: 7th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference; January 9-11, 2017; Las Vegas, NV.
Krauss MJ, Grucza RA, Bierut LJ, Cavazos-Rehg PA. “Get drunk. Smoke weed. Have fun.”: A content analysis of tweets about marijuana and alcohol. Am J Health Promot 2016 Nov 17;31(3):200-208.
Turner J, Kantardzic M. Twitter query expansion via Word2Vec-Urban Dictionary Model. 2018 Presented at: International Conference on Computing and Big Data; 2018; Charleston, SC.
Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv. 2019. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805 [accessed 2021-12-06]
Himelein-Wachowiak M, Giorgi S, Devoto A, Rahman M, Ungar L, Schwartz HA, et al. Bots and misinformation spread on social media: implications for COVID-19. J Med Internet Res 2021 May 20;23(5):e26933
© 2021. This work is licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Kantardzic, Mehmed
; Vickers-Smith, Rachel