Loading live headlines…

Topic Risk Matrix

Cross-referencing affective outrage load with public-health harm severity.

Source-BackedIndicative Data

Tracked topic Figure contradicted by new work

Outrage load × Public-health harm

Source-Backed

Low harm

Medium harm

High harm

Outrage-drivenAnger + moral disgust; travels via identity signalling.

—

Nutrition & DietHigh volumeReproductive HealthData gap

VaccinesUp to 51%Mental Healthup to 56.9%

Fear-drivenThreat framing; travels via risk-avoidance sharing.

—

Cancer Treatment30–80%Drugs/SubstancesTier 2

Curiosity / UncertaintyNovelty and open questions; travels via sense-making.

—

Antibiotic Resistance (AMR)19.3%

NeutralInformational; low affective charge.

—

Chronic DiseaseSusceptible

—

Every topic, its position and its figure come from the same tracked dataset as the Baseline Overview, including any figure updated by an approved study. Rows follow the affective register split (outrage / fear / curiosity / neutral); columns the downstream public-health harm if the claim were acted on. Two topics with the same harm can sit on different rows — the row determines which intervention family is likely to work.

Research behind each register

Source-Backed

Counted from the weekly evidence review: studies found for the topics on each row (4 topics, 2 topics, 1 topic, 1 topic). A low bar is a measurement gap, not a low-risk row.

Intervention family split

Source-Backed

Planned activities from the Activity Roadmap. Accuracy prompts fit curiosity/neutral rows; affect-based reframing and trusted messengers fit the outrage rows.

Frame: outrage load and harm are separable dimensions. Two claims with identical harm can need opposite responses. Based on McLoughlin et al., Science (2024).

Sources

1.
Vaccines — Up to 51% of vaccine posts contain misinfo (WHO 2022). 811 measles cases in England since Jan 2025. · Peer-reviewedlink
2.
Cancer Treatment — 30–80% of cancer social posts contain misinfo (JNCI 2021). 56% of patients exposed; 71% believed content (JMIR Cancer 2023). · Peer-reviewedlink
3.
Mental Health — Systematic review of 27 studies (5,057 posts): misinformation prevalence 0–56.9%, higher on TikTok than YouTube; neurodivergence content worse than other mental-health topics (Carter et al., 2026). · Peer-reviewedlink
4.
Drugs/Substances — Misinfo disproportionately targets harm reduction advice; WHO infodemic framework identifies substance misinfo as Tier 2 risk. · Peer-reviewedlink
5.
Nutrition & Diet — High volume, medium direct harm. TikTok and Instagram primary channels. No single UK prevalence study; Ofcom 2024 identifies as common misinfo category encountered by UK adults. · Peer-reviewedlink
6.
Antibiotic Resistance (AMR) — 19.3% of AMR social posts are misinfo; spreads 2.4× faster than factual content. Misinfo intensity precedes resistance trends by 6–9 months (PubMed cross-platform study, 2025). · Peer-reviewedlink
7.
Reproductive Health — TikTok and Instagram primary channels. High engagement among 18–34 demographic. Limited UK-specific prevalence data — identified as gap by JMIR 2024 scoping review. · Peer-reviewedlink
8.
McLoughlin, Brady et al. — Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online, Science 386 (2024) · Peer-reviewed · 2024link