Infodemiological Examination of Personal and Commercial Tweets About Cannabidiol: Term and Sentiment Analysis

Background: In the absence of official clinical trial information, data from social networks can be used by public health and medical researchers to assess public claims about loosely regulated substances such as cannabidiol (CBD). For example, this can be achieved by comparing the medical conditions targeted by those selling CBD against the medical conditions patients commonly treat with CBD. Objective: The objective of this study was to provide a framework for public health and medical researchers to use for identifying and analyzing the consumption and marketing of unregulated substances. Specifically, we examined CBD, which is a substance that is often presented to the public as medication despite complete evidence of efficacy and safety. Methods: We collected 567,850 tweets by searching Twitter with the Tweepy Python package using the terms "CBD" and "cannabidiol." We trained two binary text classifiers to create two corpora of 167,755 personal use and 143,322 commercial/sales tweets. Using medical, standard, and slang dictionaries, we identified and compared the most frequently occurring medical conditions, symptoms, side effects, body parts, and other substances referenced in both corpora. In addition, to assess popular claims about the efficacy of CBD as a medical treatment circulating on Twitter, we performed sentiment analysis via the VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary for Sentiment Reasoning) model on the personal CBD tweets. Results: We found references to medically relevant terms that were unique to either personal or commercial CBD tweet classes, as well as medically relevant terms that were common to both classes. When we calculated the average sentiment scores for both personal and commercial CBD tweets referencing at least one of 17 medical conditions/symptoms terms, an overall positive sentiment was observed in both personal and commercial CBD tweets. We observed instances of negative sentiment conveyed in personal CBD tweets referencing autism, whereas CBD was also marketed multiple times as a treatment for autism within commercial tweets. Conclusions: Our proposed framework provides a tool for public health and medical researchers to analyze the consumption and marketing of unregulated substances on social networks. Our analysis showed that most users of CBD are satisfied with it in regard to the condition that it is being advertised for, with the exception of autism.