Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
A missed opportunity - hospital doctors must stop 'risky' medicines
Hospital doctors and pharmacists should stop ‘risky’ medicines before patients leave hospital - according to researchers at the University of East Anglia. One in two older people are prescribed a medicine which over time has become inappropriate or unnecessary. In a recent National Overprescribing Review titled ‘Good for you, good for us, good for everybody’, the government called on doctors and pharmacists working in GP surgeries to tackle the problem of overprescribing. But research from UEA’s School of Pharmacy has found that nine out of 10 older hospital patients and their family believe that inappropriate or unnecessary medicines should also be spotted and stopped whilst they are in hospital. And the team say that by the time people are back under their GP care, a major opportunity has been missed. Prof Debi Bhattacharya, from UEA’s School of Pharmacy, said: “We know that half of older people admitted to hospital arrive having been prescribed a medicine that over time has become inappropriate for them. These medicines will have more risks than benefits. “And their side effects cause problems, like making them feel drowsy, nauseous or have trouble getting to sleep. These problems impact a person’s quality of life to the extent that they can cause re-hospitalisation. “Our research has shown that very few patients have one of these ‘risky’ medicines stopped whilst in hospital. “Continuing medicines when they are not needed unnecessarily harms people and wastes NHS money. “The time is right to undertake research into ways of safely increasing the number of inappropriate and unnecessary medicines that are stopped,” she added. To tackle the problem, Prof Bhattacharya is leading a £2.4 million trial to stop risky medicines in hospital - in collaboration with researchers at the Universities of York, Newcastle, Leeds and Leicester, the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital and Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge. Patient and Public Engagement lead for CHARMER, Katherine Murphy, said: “We are working with hospitals and GP organisations across England to see whether the new strategy works, helps people, causes no harm, and is good value for the NHS. “And for this trial to be meaningful to people, we need to make sure that we look at the things that matter to them when testing whether stopping a medicine has had a positive outcome.” The research team recently surveyed 200 people including patients, informal carers, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists and researchers to find out what they should look at in the trial. On reviewing the results Katherine Murphy said: “It was good to see that what people really want us to look at is whether patients can do the things that they want to do, not how much patients can do. “Being able to walk up a flight of stairs, for example, may be important to some patients but not to others. We need to make sure that medicines are prescribed that support people to get the best quality of life. In the trial, we also need to make sure that the way that we stop risky medicines causes no harm and is good value for the NHS.” For more information about the CHARMER study visit https://www.uea.ac.uk/web/groups-and-centres/charmer/about-the-research The research has been funded by the National Institute of Health and Social Care research.
Emory Experts - Ad-blockers Shave $14.2 Billion Off Consumer Spending, Says New Research
Digital advertising is big business. So big, in fact, that it is well on track to become the most dominant form of advertising. Estimates suggest that spending on digital ads in the U.S. alone will reach a staggering $201 billion by 2023 – more than two-thirds of total spend. And it makes sense. With consumers increasingly shopping online, advertisers continue to ramp up their use of data and technologies to find innovative new ways to reach target audiences. The Flip Side to Digital Advertising Success The sheer ubiquity of online advertisements is driving a corollary upswing in the use of another digital technology. Ad blockers are easy-to-install and free-to-use software that consumers can deploy to hide unwanted ads on their screens, and they are gaining huge popularity worldwide. The numbers are hard to determine, but some evidence points to anywhere from 600 million to two billion Internet users having downloaded some form of ad-blocking in the last three years or so – well over 11% of the global internet population. Also hard to gauge is the impact on advertising revenue that ad-blockers are having – that is, until now. A new paper by Vilma Todri, assistant professor of information systems and operations management at Goizueta, sheds stunning light on the effect of ad-blocking on online search and purchasing behaviors among internet users. And what she has found should give advertisers serious pause for thought. According to her analysis, ad-blockers decrease consumer online spending by an average of 1.45%. Now, assuming that around 615 million internet users have downloaded some kind of ad-blocking software in recent years, the actual impact puts the loss in revenue from digital advertising around the $14.2 billion mark, year over year. And that’s not all. Todri also finds that ad-blocking seems to have the effect of limiting consumer spending disproportionally on certain brands over others. Users who opt out of seeing digital ads tend to continue to purchase mostly those products or services they are already familiar with, and not engage with new brands; they are less likely to use different search channels or visit new e-commerce websites as a result of ad-blocking. Analyzing Customer Engagement from 300 Million Internet Visits To get at these insights, Todri analyzed data from a U.S. web behavior dataset spanning a three-year period, from January 2015 to December 2018. She looked at web-wide visits, transaction behaviors and demographic identifiers across a total of 92,000+ users and more than 300 million internet visits. To measure the effect of ad-blocking, Todri matched all of this data with an ad-blocker dataset from the same source – a well-known U.S. measurement and analytics company – which shows that around 10% of users had installed an ad-blocker at some point during this three-year window. Crunching the numbers, Todri finds that the effect of using ad-blocking software on these users is to reduce their online search engine sessions by 5.6%. They also spend 5.5% less time visiting e-commerce websites. In other words, consumers who opt out of seeing ads end up browsing and shopping significantly less than others. And in terms of what these users are buying, the data shows that they are much less likely to spend on brands they don’t know or have not experienced before (and conversely, more likely to stick to familiar brands.) Digging even deeper, Todri also finds that this negative effect penalizes the brands that invest most heavily in advertising online more that those that don’t. In other words, ad-blockers are hurting those who advertise online most. Todri’s paper is the first to expose the quantitative, negative impact of ad-blocking on consumer spending. And her findings should be on the radar of any company looking to market its products and services online, she says. “The data clearly shows that ad-blockers reduce online spending by 1.45%, which amounts to something in the order of $14.2 billion in lost revenue given that about 600 million people around the world have installed this kind of software,” she says. “And the figures suggest that it’s the brands that heavily invest on online advertising who are bearing the brunt of this drop-off in consumer spending.” Search Behaviors, Interrupted “Advertisers also need to look at the fact that ad-blockers inhibit search behaviors,” adds Todri. “The figures point to a drop of around 5% when users have installed ad-blockers, which in turn means that they are not discovering and spending on new brands. They’re sticking with what they already know.” There’s an imperative here for companies to interpret these findings and reflect on what they say about ad-blocking, and also about what constitutes “acceptable advertising practices,” she says. “It’s reasonable to assume that people who use ad-blockers simply don’t like ads and aren’t influenced by them. Yet the data points to a different conclusion: if consumer purchasing falls after installing ad-blockers, it would suggest that advertising does work – seeing advertisements does drive searching and purchasing behaviors. So taken together, there’s a likely imperative here for advertisers to find new formats in terms of reaching their targets, and to strengthen their organic channels and social presence online.” Digital advertising clearly does impact search and purchasing behaviors, says Todri, so firms need to get creative while being cognizant of the fact that some consumers find current advertising practices annoying. Vilma Todri is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Previously, she worked for Google where she was developing integrated cross-platform advertising strategies for large business clients that partnered with tech giant. Vilma is available to speak with media about this subject – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Three Aston University STEM pioneers shortlisted for Women in Tech Awards
• Three finalists from Aston University shortlisted for prestigious Women in Tech Awards • Two academics are up for the award which will be announced in October • A degree apprentice has also been nominated in the category Three STEM pioneers from Aston University are celebrating after being shortlisted for the prestigious Midlands Women In Tech Awards. Aston University’s Reham Badawy and Lucy Bastin have picked up nominations for the academic category while Jessica Morgan has been put forward for the apprentice category for the awards. The Midlands Women in Tech Awards are an opportunity to highlight and recognise the ongoing contribution of women in the tech sector. The aim of the awards is to raise the visibility of women in the tech space and enable the next generation to ‘see it and therefore aspire to it’. Jessica Morgan is studying a Digital Technology Solutions apprenticeship with Cap Gemini and Aston University, with experience working on projects within the public sector. She is in the final year of her degree apprenticeship and has been balancing work, studying and volunteering, while being on track for a first class honours. Reham Badawy is part of the Undergraduate Teaching Team at Aston University. Her research work has used smart tech to detect and monitor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. She is a strong advocate for women in STEM and is a UK Ambassador for Women are Boring. Lucy Bastin has a Masters in GIS and a PhD in Urban Ecology. She is a senior lecturer in Computer Science and was recently on secondment to the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. She developed web-based biodiversity information systems that support accessible and user-friendly reporting by the international community against policy and conservation targets such as the Sustainable Development Goals. Professor Kate Sugden, deputy dean for the College of Engineering and Physical Sciences at Aston University said: “We are delighted to see so many Aston University shortlisted candidates for the Women in Tech Awards. “In our eyes they are all winners and are great examples of our ongoing commitment to making significant contributions to the region and wider society.” Voting closes on August 20 and more details about the finalists can be found here: www.womenintechawards.co.uk The ceremony takes place on 7 October where the winners will be announced.
The Facebook Oversight Board’s ruling temporarily upholding the social media giant’s ban on former President Donald J. Trump, which they instructed the company to reassess within six months, noted that the parameters for an indefinite suspension are not defined in Facebook's policies. The non-decision in this high-profile case illustrates the difficulties stemming from the lack of clear frameworks for regulating social media. For starters, says web science pioneer James Hendler, social media companies need a better definition of the misinformation they seek curb. Absent a set of societally agreed upon rules, like those that define slander and libel, companies currently create and enforce their own policies — and the results have been mixed at best. “If Trump wants to sue to get his Facebook or Twitter account back, there’s no obvious legal framework. There’s nothing to say of the platform, ‘If it does X, Y, or Z, then it is violating the law,’” said Hendler, director of the Institute for Data Exploration and Applications at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. “If there were, Trump would have to prove in court that it doesn’t do X, Y, or Z, or Twitter would have to prove that it does, and we would have a way to adjudicate it.” As exemplified in disputes over the 2020 presidential election results, political polarization is inflamed by a proliferation of online misinformation. A co-author of the seminal 2006 Science article that established the concept of web science, Hendler said that “as society wrestles with the social, ethical, and legal questions surrounding misinformation and social media regulation, it needs technologist to help inform this debate.” “People are claiming artificial intelligence will handle this, but computers and AI are very bad at ‘I’ll know it when I see it,’” said Hendler, who’s most recent book is titled Social Machines: The Coming Collision of Artificial Intelligence, Social Networking, and Humanity. “What we need is a framework that makes it much clearer: What are we looking for? What happens when we find it? And who’s responsible?” The legal restrictions on social media companies are largely dictated by a single sentence in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, known as Section 230, which establishes that internet providers and services will not be treated as traditional publishers, and thus are not legally responsible for much of the content they link to. According to Hendler, this clause no longer adequately addresses the scale and scope of power these companies currently wield. “Social media companies provide a podium with an international reach of hundreds of millions of people. Just because social media companies are legally considered content providers rather than publishers, it doesn’t mean they’re not responsible for anything on their site,” Hendler said. “What counts as damaging misinformation? With individuals and publishers, we answer that question all the time with libel and slander laws. But what we don’t have is a corresponding set of principles to adjudicate harm through social media.” Hendler has extensive experience in policy and advisory positions that consider aspects of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and internet and web technologies as they impact issues such as regulation of social media, and powerful technologies including facial recognition and artificial intelligence. Hendler is available to speak to diverse aspects of policies related to social media, information technologies, and AI.
The Zoom Boom? More and more Americans are getting plastic surgery – let our expert explain why
After almost a year where most American offices went unused, experts are noticing an unexpected side effect from all those online meetings. It appears that prolonged exposure to seeing yourself in that tiny box during video calls is inspiring a sudden uptick in plastic surgery. The plastic surgery industry is booming during the coronavirus pandemic, largely due to the increase in the number of virtual meetings offered through Zoom and other video web services. Call it the “Zoom boom.” The interest in cosmetic surgery is boosting appointments for Botox, lip fillers and other plastic surgery procedures that help people feel more attractive on computer screens, according to Dr. Maria Helena Lima, an assistant professor of Surgery for the Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University. “In the last few months, there has been a jump in the number of patients wanting plastic surgery procedures,” said Lima. “We have discovered that when people are in Zoom meetings, they should be listening to the content and paying attention to what’s going on, but they’re not.” Lima says participants are oftentimes looking at themselves on the screen and wondering what could be done to alter their image. It is a trend that offers up some interesting questions: • Along with the Zoom boom, are there other reasons people are opting to go under the knife for an elective procedure? • Are there long-term consequences to these decisions? • What do patients need to know first to avoid any safety or health issues? There’s a lot to know about this topic, and if you are a journalist looking to learn more, then let us help with your coverage. Dr. Maria Helena Lima is one of the nation’s leading plastic surgeons with 12 years of experience specializing in aesthetic plastic surgery, facial reconstruction and craniofacial pediatric plastic surgery. She is available to speak with media about this emerging trend. Simply click on her name now to arrange an interview today.
What’s it all mean as ‘Big-Tech’ pivots to privacy? Let our Experts help explain if you are covering
The business of the internet as we know it, is about to change. As companies in the past have thrived, boomed, and found serious cash and success harvesting your data – that model may soon be coming to an end. With companies like Google and Apple leading the way, odds are a serious transformation is about to come and the know that notice has been served, it is getting a lot of attention. The decision, coming from the world’s biggest digital advertising company, could help push the industry away from the use of such individualized tracking, which has come under increasing criticism from privacy advocates and faces scrutiny from regulators. Google’s heft means the change could reshape the digital ad business, where many companies rely on tracking individuals to target their ads, measure the ads’ effectiveness, and stop fraud. Google accounted for 52% of last year’s global digital ad spending of $292 billion, according to Jounce Media, a digital ad consultancy. About 40% of the money that flows from advertisers to publishers on the open internet—meaning digital advertising outside of closed systems such as Google Search, YouTube, or Facebook—goes through Google’s ad buying tools, according to Jounce. March 03 – The Wall Street Journal. But what will this mean for powerhouses like Facebook or the multitude of apps and carriers who rely on data, and the money that comes with it to succeed? What lies ahead will be interesting, and if you are a journalist looking to cover this topic – then let our experts help. Vilma Todri is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems & Operations Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. Previously, she worked for Google where she was developing integrated cross-platform advertising strategies for large business clients that partnered with Google and recently wrote a comprehensive paper on this very topic. Vilma is available to speak with media about this subject – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
As Flexible Voting Options Scrutinized, Expert Says Online Voting Not a Safe Alternative
The popularity of — and controversies surrounding — early voting and mail-in ballots demonstrates a demand for more flexible voting options. But online voting shouldn’t be up for consideration, according to James Hendler, the head of the Institute for Data Exploration and Applications at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Hendler also chairs the U.S. Technology Policy Committee of the Association for Computing Machinery, the world’s largest and oldest society of individuals involved in all aspects of computing. In public statements expressing his own opinion and on behalf of the ACM, Hendler has discussed the vulnerabilities of online voting and the organization’s effort to press against its adoption. Hendler argues that online voting is not, and cannot be made to be, secure against malware and denial of service attacks — and that no app or underlying technology, including blockchain, holds potential to overcome those challenges. "The current state of mobile voting is that we are not ready to deploy it at scale, that it has significant technical and socio-technical aspects, particularly cybersecurity, that we need to worry about, and that there are alternatives,” Hendler said. “The ACM has worked hard as an organization to explain our evidence-based reasoning, and to express the hope that online-voting won’t be used now and in the foreseeable future.” In explaining why online voting is more complicated than online banking, shopping and other common internet activities, Hendler said, “The main reason that online voting is more complex is that it must maintain anonymity, no one is allowed to know how you voted. Securing online voting without providing access to identity is extremely difficult. There are other reasons as well including the staggering cost and the lack of a centralized US authority, but identity management remains the number one.” Under his leadership, the ACM’s U.S. Technology Policy Committee, along with leading organizations and experts in cybersecurity and computing, sent a letter to all governors, secretaries of state and other state election directors urging them not to allow the use of internet or voting app systems. Hendler has extensive experience in policy and advisory positions that consider aspects of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and internet and web technologies as they impact issues such as online voting and the regulation of social media and powerful technologies including facial recognition and artificial intelligence. In light of ongoing political unrest, Hendler is available to speak to diverse aspects of information technology as related to the election, AI in applications like policing, and the politics related to social media.
Criminals are opportunists, and the COVID-19 global onslaught has brought with it not just health threats but cybersecurity risks, too. Within weeks of the COVID-19 outbreak, hackers have already commandeered the virus to unleash cyberattacks, sending emails purporting to provide coronavirus guidance laced with cyberattack software. In one more alarming case, they appear to have attacked a hospital and forced it to cancel operations and take key systems offline. As the outbreak continues to intensify, the UK National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) warned that the volume of these attacks will likely increase, pointing to the increased registration of coronavirus-related webpages. Criminals are opportunists, and the COVID-19 global onslaught has brought with it not just health threats but cybersecurity risks, too. As companies move to protect the health of their workforce, it’s also important to protect the systems they’re using to run their businesses. It’s especially important for hospitals to shore-up their cyber defenses. If they don’t, just as they are racing to respond to COVID-19, they could face situations like University Hospital Brno in the Czech Republic, which earlier this month was forced to divert patients and cancel planned operations while it worked to address an attack. The most likely cyber threats are email “phishing” campaigns that use the coronavirus as a lure to get the recipient to open an attachment that contains malware. According to the NCSC, such “phishing” attempts are happening on a global scale in multiple countries, which has led to both a theft of money and sensitive data. Similarly, known hacker groups have been launching websites purporting to sell masks or other safety-related measures for coronavirus, possibly to use them as another vector for cyberattacks. The NCSC has also cautioned that these attacks are “versatile and can be conducted through various media, adapted to different sectors and monetized via multiple means, including ransomware, credential theft, bitcoin or fraud.” The cybersecurity firm ProofPoint has seen a rise in these cyberattack emails with COVID-19 themes since January. Both ProofPoint and IBM’s X-Force cybersecurity unit identified a campaign that targeted users in Japan with an email masquerading as a coronavirus information email that carries with it a potent type of cybercrime software. In the US, the Secret Service recently warned of scams from online criminals posing as sellers of high-demand medical supplies to prevent coronavirus. They’ll require payment upfront and not send the products. Cyber criminals have also been posing as the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), sending fraudulent emails from the former and “creating domain names similar to the CDC’s web address to request passwords and even bitcoin donations to fund a vaccine” for the latter. In addition to the use of the coronavirus as a cyberattack vector, the growing need for working remotely to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 has increased companies’ exposure to cyber threats. The increase in remote work creates more opportunities for hackers to make inroads from less secure locations. Companies should also ensure they can provide adequate security when their whole workforce is remote. They should quickly work through the security implications of workers choosing to switch to insecure personal devices. With national-level pressures on home broadband, staff will also resort to mobile hotspots, which are often less secure. And enabling remote connectivity at scale, with the right security configurations, can be a challenge even with months of preparation time. A recent US Department of Homeland Security COVID-19 cybersecurity notice pointed to the importance of making sure that security measures are up to date for companies’ remote access systems. Additional measures to consider include enabling multifactor authentication—which can require two or more steps to verify a user’s identity before granting access to corporate networks. The NCSC is also working to identify malicious sites responsible for phishing and cyberattack software. A final looming cyberthreat related to Covid-19 is disinformation. The World Health Organization and other agencies have for months been combatting disinformation campaigns spreading false information about the origins of and treatments for COVID-19—reports that seed more confusion and increase risks to society. All of that means that computer virus risks are emerging as the biological virus spreads—and both are a threat to business. Cyber risk mitigation efforts should account for the different ways that a company can be affected, including impacts on the technical, operational, legal and reputational aspects of a business. Often, the reputational effects of a cyberattack are more significant than direct the business or technical impact. To mitigate all of the potential impacts of cyberattacks taking advantage of the Covid-19 outbreak, companies should: Review and update crisis and cybersecurity response plans, and ensure internal and external communications response plans are robust. Confirm that members of the crisis management team understand their roles and responsibilities. Make sure all communications channels have the latest security patches. Review and update access controls, particularly when remote access is used heavily, to make sure that only those who require access to sensitive systems to do their jobs have it. Take extra care when handling medical information. For companies managing employees who have contracted Covid-19, it’s important that personal health information is handled with strong security measures, including encryption. Educate employees about the cyber risks that may attempt to capitalize on fear of the Covid-19 virus—whether it be phishing email or disinformation. Covid-19 poses a number of short- and long-term challenges to business resilience, and the virus’s trajectory is quick and unpredictable. But it’s possible to anticipate and mitigate a number of the cyber threats that will try to ride the virus’s coattails. The companies that do will be more resilient and better positioned to withstand the direct health and operational effects of the virus.
Why posting to multiple channels drives virality of online videos
Back in the summer of 2012, South Korean pop star Psy released a music video on YouTube. Running at just under four minutes, “Gangnam Style” rapidly became a global sensation. Within just two months of its release, the video was attracting a daily average of nine million viewers. In late September, Guinness World Records confirmed it to be the “most liked” video on YouTube. By December it had become the first piece of content on the platform to garner more than one billion views. As of 2020, the Gangnam Style video has been seen by more than 3.7 billion people around the world. Pys’s official YouTube channel has around 14.1 million followers—a significant user base. But even assuming that each one of these followers had watched the video several times and shared it with others, it still doesn’t account for the sheer volume of views the video has racked up over time. So what’s going on? What is behind the super virality of Gangnam Style and other pieces of content that, like it, appear to defy the rules of probability on the social web? Rajiv Garg, associate professor of information systems & operations management at Emory’s Goizueta Business School, has put a new hypothesis to the test. And he’s found that there’s a clear link between virality and what he calls the “spillover effect” of posting content onto multiple platforms at specific times. “We know that when celebrities and popular figures post videos, there’s likely to be a strong response from their follower base, depending on the content. But over time, user consumption reaches a saturation point—the novelty simply wears off. And this happens around 10 days after a video is posted,” Garg said. “Yet some videos just keep on going, getting successive waves of views on the same platform in quantities that eclipse the follower base. We hypothesized that this is affected by launching on different sites and platforms, but we really wanted to understand the mechanisms behind this and figure out why this activity was occurring on the original platform as well as others—as in the Gangnam case.” Together with Vijay Mahajan (McCombs, UT Austin) and Haris Krijestorac (HEC Paris), Garg looked at the diffusion patterns for viral content on the social web. First analysis confirmed that content sharing by users was the chief primary driver of virality; indeed, views typically increased after a video would appear on a second or third platform. But this didn’t explain why those views were growing back on the original platform too. In fact, the finding ran contrary to the established view that platforms compete for content—that posting to one platform leeches user views from another. “The reasoning until now has been that social platforms cannibalize content. In other words, when you post Gangnam Style onto Vimeo, you’ll get fewer views on YouTube as a result,” Garg said. “Users will move to the other platform and watch it there instead.” But in fact, the opposite was happening. Intrigued, Garg and his coauthors deployed synthetic control—a comparative statistics methodology—to test the causal effects of sharing content to one platform versus posting it to multiple sites. This methodology involved posting 381 viral videos on 26 video-hosting sites. In addition, they ran a randomized field experiment with 30 videos that were randomly seeded onto new platforms at random times. The results across both methods were consistent. Users who were finding the videos once they had been posted to a second (or third, or fourth) platform were still sending viewers to the original platform to view the content. And viewers were coming in droves. “What seems to be happening is that content is going viral as it’s consumed on the original platform—YouTube, say—and then shared to other channels. Here, on the second channel—Vimeo, Daily Motion or others—these videos reach new audiences,” explained Garg. “But for whatever reason, once they’ve discovered the video, many of these new users prefer to go to the original channel and watch it there. And this is happening consistently and in highly significant numbers of users.” This spillover effect could be due to a number of things, says Garg. It could be that for certain audiences, content is simply more readily discoverable on certain platforms—but that these platforms are not the first choice in viewing preferences. It could also be that the content is visible to users but not viewable on the second platform. “Say Gangnam Style is seen on YouTube by a viewer and shared. It then appears on Vimeo, and a second user discovers it; but maybe this user doesn’t like Vimeo or perhaps Vimeo isn’t available in their region or country. What happens then?” noted Garg. “The simple answer is that these new users end up Googling Gangnam Style and find it on YouTube—the original platform. The novelty and virality of the first wave of users has died down, but this new wave of users comes in, creating a spillover effect that boosts the popularity of the video all over again.” Looking again at the results of their analyses, Garg and his colleagues were able to determine that the spillover effect is strongest immediately after a video is introduced onto a secondary platform, as well as at the 18- and 42-day marks. “We analyzed the effect of introducing a video onto a new platform on the increase in views it generates on the original platform over time,” said Garg. “It appears the spillover mechanism is strongest during the first week but experiences spikes later on. In the long-run, we were able to generate twice as many views back on the original platform as we would otherwise have expected. So the effect really is huge.” It is also limited, however. The researchers found diminishing impact in posting content to a succession of different platforms. By the time the video is shared to a fourth or fifth platform, Garg and his coauthors saw no returns. The findings are nonetheless hugely significant for content creators, he says. “We’ve seen that content shared on different platforms sends users back to the original, and that debunks the idea that online channels cannibalize each other’s content,” Garg noted. “And we’re able to say with precision that this effect is strongest during the first week with later spikes, suggesting these may be the best times to introduce content onto new platforms.” Content creators looking to ‘viralize’ their material would do well to take a strategic, omni-channel approach based on these insights, says Garg. Multi-platform sharing is an effective way of spreading word of mouth content and reaching new audience bases—and not just nationally, he stresses. “The effect is not limited to borders or languages. Savvy content creators can create their first ripple on a YouTube or Vimeo and, as the views start falling off, go on to propagate to a second or third channel, including foreign ones,” he said. “The spillover effect is just the same. Staging and staggering your content this way, you reach completely new audiences, many of whom will spill over onto your original platform.” If you are a journalist looking to cover this topic – then let our experts help with your story. Rajiv Garg from Emory’s Goizueta Business School is available to speak with media – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Artificial Intelligence Playing a Powerful Role in Understanding and Fighting COVID-19
Artificial intelligence is emerging as a powerful new ally in tracking COVID-19, modeling the virus at the molecular level, and analyzing the myriad research results being published daily. James Hendler, the Tetherless World Professor of Computer, Web, and Cognitive Sciences at Rensselaer, and director of the Rensselaer Institute of Data Exploration and Applications, is leading campus efforts to marshal AI resources for the purpose of battling the virus. “The bottom line is that, at heart, dealing with COVID-19 is a ‘big data’ problem, and AI is a crucial tool in the big data toolkit,” Hendler said. For example, IDEA and the Rensselaer Libraries have collaborated to maintain lists of COVID-19-related data sources and scholarly research publications. AI is being used to translate literally thousands of scientific insights from text-based research products into forms that can more easily be analyzed. Hendler and other Rensselaer AI experts are also involved in studying the spread of the virus under different policy measures at the local, then state and national, and ultimately global scale. Additionally, Rensselaer is part of the national COVID-19 High Performance Computing Consortium, which is offering researchers access to supercomputers for COVID-19 research. In addition to AiMOS, the most powerful supercomputer housed at a private university, Rensselaer is offering access to the expertise of world-class faculty, including in artificial intelligence. Hendler said AiMOS is one of the few facilities that can truly offer a platform optimized for artificial intelligence computing. “AI has helped us achieve an excellent understanding of the coronavirus and its interactions at the molecular level. That’s going to make it possible not only to model the virus, but also how it will interact with potential drug targets and vaccines,” said Hendler. “A platform like AiMOS is invaluable for molecular modeling in drug discovery, helping scientists cope with a huge and rapidly changing literature, and exploring means to model, and then mitigate, the spread of the disease. These are the kinds of things that modern AI can do.” Hendler has authored over 400 books, technical papers and articles in the areas of Semantic Web, artificial intelligence, agent-based computing and high performance processing. One of the originators of the “Semantic Web,” Hendler is the former Chief Scientist of the Information Systems Office at the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and was awarded a US Air Force Exceptional Civilian Service Medal. Among other organizations, he is a member of the National Academies Board on Research Data and Information, a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration, and he serves as chair of the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) U.S. technology policy committee.