Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 16;45(7):745-752.
doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaf047.

Beyond the Posts: Analyzing Breast Implant Illness Discourse With Natural Language Processing and Deep Learning

Beyond the Posts: Analyzing Breast Implant Illness Discourse With Natural Language Processing and Deep Learning

Arman J Fijany et al. Aesthet Surg J. .

Abstract

Background: Breast implant illness (BII) is a spectrum of symptoms some people attribute to breast implants. Although causality remains unproven, patient interest has grown significantly. Understanding patient perceptions of BII on social media is crucial because these platforms increasingly influence healthcare decisions.

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to analyze patient perceptions and emotional responses to BII on social media using Robust optimizing Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers, a natural processing model trained on 124 million X posts.

Methods: Posts mentioning BII from 2014 to 2023 were analyzed using 2 natural language processing models: 1 for sentiment (positive/negative) and another for emotions (fear, sadness, anger, disgust, neutral, surprise, and joy). Posts were then classified by their highest scoring emotion. The results were compared over across 2014-2018 and 2019-2023, with correlation analysis (Pearson correlation coefficient) between published implant explantation and augmentation data.

Results: The analysis of 6099 posts over 10 years showed 75.4% were negative, with monthly averages of 50.85 peaking at 213 in March 2019. Fear and neutral emotions dominated, representing 35.9% and 35.6%, respectively. The strongest emotions were neutral and fear, with an average score of 0.293 and 0.286 per post, respectively. Fear scores increased from 0.219 (2014-2018) to 0.303 (2019-2023). Strong positive correlations (r > 0.70) existed between annual explantation rates/explantation-to-augmentation ratios and total, negative, neutral, and fear posts.

Conclusions: BII discourse on X peaked in 2019 characterized predominantly by negative sentiment and fear. The strong correlation between fear/negative-based posts and explantation rates suggests social media discourse significantly influences patient decisions regarding breast implant removal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Relationship between BII-related posts vs the annual number of implant explantations. R2 denotes the coefficient of determination. BII, breast implant illness.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Relationship between BII-related posts and the ratio of explantation to augmentation per year. R2 denotes the coefficient of determination. BII, breast implant illness.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Radar plot with the distribution of BII-related emotional sentiment over a 10-year period. BII, breast implant illness.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Radar plot with the distribution of BII-related emotional sentiment over 5-year periods. BII, breast implant illness.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Three predominant BII hypotheses: biofilm, autoimmune/adjuvant, and psychosomatic. BII, breast implant illness.

References

    1. Nguyen TT, Kilaru P. Plastic surgery and cosmetic procedures: augmentation and reconstruction procedures. FP Essent. 2020;497:27–36. - PubMed
    1. Deva AK, Cuss A, Magnusson M, Cooter R. The “game of implants”: a perspective on the crisis-prone history of breast implants. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39:S55–S65. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjy310 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Patel BC, Wong CS, Wright T, Schaffner AD. Breast Implants. StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2024, StatPearls Publishing LLC; 2024. - PubMed
    1. McKernan CD, Vorstenbosch J, Chu JJ, Nelson JA. Breast implant safety: an overview of current regulations and screening guidelines. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37:212–216. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06899-y - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Magnusson MR, Cooter RD, Rakhorst H, McGuire PA, Adams WP, Jr, Deva AK. Breast implant illness: a way forward. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143:74s–81s. doi: 10.1097/prs.0000000000005573 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms