Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

CoVERT: A Corpus of Fact-checked Biomedical COVID-19 Tweets

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2204.12164 v1 pith:Y7MMQCNM submitted 2022-04-26 cs.CL cs.IR

classification cs.CLcs.IR
keywords informationtweetsevidencefact-checkingbiomedicalcorpuscovid-19-relatedfact-checked
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Over the course 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 to people's health, particularly when false information is shared, for instance recommendations on how to treat diseases without professional medical advice. Therefore, automatic fact-checking resources and systems developed specifically for the 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 medical 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 moderate 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 indirectly available in pretrained language models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Machine Understanding of Scientific Language

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The thesis defines and evaluates tasks and datasets for automatic fact checking, cite-worthiness, exaggeration detection, and information change measurement in science communication, culminating in SPICED, a cross-med...

  2. ClimateViz: A Benchmark for Statistical Reasoning and Fact Verification on Scientific Charts

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A large-scale benchmark shows that leading multimodal language models still underperform expert humans at verifying climate claims from scientific charts.

Pith tools