Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Monant Medical Misinformation Dataset: Mapping Articles to Fact-Checked Claims

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 2204.12294 v1 pith:DF6CD6V2 submitted 2022-04-26 cs.CL cs.CYcs.IRcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.CYcs.IRcs.LG
keywords misinformationdatasetmedicalarticlesclaimclaimsarticlefact-checked
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

False information has a significant negative influence on individuals as well as on the whole society. Especially in the current COVID-19 era, we witness an unprecedented growth of medical misinformation. To help tackle this problem with machine learning approaches, we are publishing a feature-rich dataset of approx. 317k medical news articles/blogs and 3.5k fact-checked claims. It also contains 573 manually and more than 51k automatically labelled mappings between claims and articles. Mappings consist of claim presence, i.e., whether a claim is contained in a given article, and article stance towards the claim. We provide several baselines for these two tasks and evaluate them on the manually labelled part of the dataset. The dataset enables a number of additional tasks related to medical misinformation, such as misinformation characterisation studies or studies of misinformation diffusion between sources.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Analysing Health Misinformation with Advanced Centrality Metrics in Online Social Networks

    cs.SI 2025-07 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    The proposed centrality metrics are largely re-labelings of PageRank, Katz centrality, and randomly seeded in-degree weighting, with weak and partly unverifiable validation.

Pith tools