ArticleScience advances2022
Losing the battle over best-science guidance early in a crisis: COVID-19 and beyond.
Article in Science advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of infodemics in outbreaks or health crises: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Advocating for a community-centred model for responding to potential information harms.Nature human behaviour · 2025Review
- Graph-Based Prediction of Spatio-Temporal Vaccine Hesitancy From Insurance Claims Data.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2025Article
- Context matters: How to research vaccine attitudes and uptake after the COVID-19 crisis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024Article
- Non-equilibrium physics of multi-species assembly applied to fibrils inhibition in biomolecular condensates and growth of online distrust.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Modelling and predicting online vaccination views using bow-tie decomposition.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ensuring widespread public exposure to best-science guidance is crucial in any crisis, e.g., coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), monkeypox, abortion misinformation, climate change, and beyond. We show how this battle got lost on Facebook very early during the COVID-19 pandemic and why the mainstream majority, including many parenting communities, had already moved closer to more extreme communities by the time vaccines arrived. Hidden heterogeneities in terms of who was talking and listening to whom explain why Facebook's own promotion of best-science guidance also appears to have missed key audience segments. A simple mathematical model reproduces the exposure dynamics at the system level. Our findings could be used to tailor guidance at scale while accounting for individual diversity and to help predict tipping point behavior and system-level responses to interventions in future crises.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.