Fake–Real gaps in observed spread and detectability differ between health misinformation datasets built in different ways: a comparison of CoAID and FakeHealth

Health misinformation datasets don't reach a common ground about what misinformation is. FakeHealth labels mainstream health news by expert-rated reporting quality, while CoAID compares fact-checked COVID-19 claims with material from health agencies and health information publishers. We compared model-standardized Fake/Real ratios of observed social media posts, including items with no observed posts, between the CoAID News and FakeHealth HealthStory subsets, and evaluated leakage-controlled text classifiers within, across and beyond the two datasets. Fake items drew fewer observed posts than Real items in both datasets, but the ratio was 0.253 in CoAID and 0.840 in FakeHealth (ratio-of-ratios 0.301; 95% interval 0.154–0.645). The CoAID gap lay entirely in whether an item was posted at all and was concentrated among Fake items with no identifiable publisher, which points to limited findability as well as limited spread. In two FakeNewsNet collections outside health, Fake items drew more observed posts in GossipCop (ratio 2.144), and PolitiFact's interval included parity. Text showed a parallel split: Fake and Real were highly separable within CoAID (macro F1 0.926) and modestly within FakeHealth (0.675), transfer was poor in both directions, and word–label associations were uncorrelated across datasets. Fake items were shorter in both datasets, and length alone ranked transferred items and independent COVID rumors better than the word-based models. The distance between Fake and Real items, in language and in observed engagement, differed between datasets that define and source misinformation differently; these are comparisons between dataset contexts, not estimates of a pandemic effect. Engagement studies and detection benchmarks should report how labels, sources and collection were defined, check for source–label entanglement, shared-post dependence and simple length baselines, and test beyond a single dataset.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
SocArXiv (OSF Preprints)
Published
2026-11-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/c83dk_v1
Primary Topic
Misinformation and Its Impacts
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
preprint

Fake–Real gaps in observed spread and detectability differ between health misinformation datasets built in different ways: a comparison of CoAID and FakeHealth

Ji Zhao, Jesús Valdiviezo
SocArXiv (OSF Preprints)
Misinformation and Its Impacts
preprint

Fake–Real gaps in observed spread and detectability differ between health misinformation datasets built in different ways: a comparison of CoAID and FakeHealth

Ji Zhao, Jesús Valdiviezo
preprint en

Abstract

Health misinformation datasets don't reach a common ground about what misinformation is. FakeHealth labels mainstream health news by expert-rated reporting quality, while CoAID compares fact-checked COVID-19 claims with material from health agencies and health information publishers. We compared model-standardized Fake/Real ratios of observed social media posts, including items with no observed posts, between the CoAID News and FakeHealth HealthStory subsets, and evaluated leakage-controlled text classifiers within, across and beyond the two datasets. Fake items drew fewer observed posts than Real items in both datasets, but the ratio was 0.253 in CoAID and 0.840 in FakeHealth (ratio-of-ratios 0.301; 95% interval 0.154–0.645). The CoAID gap lay entirely in whether an item was posted at all and was concentrated among Fake items with no identifiable publisher, which points to limited findability as well as limited spread. In two FakeNewsNet collections outside health, Fake items drew more observed posts in GossipCop (ratio 2.144), and PolitiFact's interval included parity. Text showed a parallel split: Fake and Real were highly separable within CoAID (macro F1 0.926) and modestly within FakeHealth (0.675), transfer was poor in both directions, and word–label associations were uncorrelated across datasets. Fake items were shorter in both datasets, and length alone ranked transferred items and independent COVID rumors better than the word-based models. The distance between Fake and Real items, in language and in observed engagement, differed between datasets that define and source misinformation differently; these are comparisons between dataset contexts, not estimates of a pandemic effect. Engagement studies and detection benchmarks should report how labels, sources and collection were defined, check for source–label entanglement, shared-post dependence and simple length baselines, and test beyond a single dataset.

SocArXiv (OSF Preprints)
Good health and well-being
Misinformation and Its Impacts
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon