ArticleProceedings of the ... International World-Wide Web Conference. International WWW Conference2017
"We make choices we think are going to save us": Debate and stance identification for online breast cancer CAM discussions.
Article in Proceedings of the ... International World-Wide Web Conference. International WWW Conference, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Advances in Using Natural Language Processing to Address Public Health Research Questions Using Social Media and ConsumerGenerated Data.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2019Article
- Beyond opinion classification: Extracting facts, opinions and experiences from health forums.PloS one · 2019Article
- Novel Approach to Cluster Patient-Generated Data Into Actionable Topics: Case Study of a Web-Based Breast Cancer Forum.JMIR medical informatics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients discuss complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in online health communities. Sometimes, patients' conflicting opinions toward CAM-related issues trigger debates in the community. The objectives of this paper are to identify such debates, identify controversial CAM therapies in a popular online breast cancer community, as well as patients' stances towards them. To scale our analysis, we trained a set of classifiers. We first constructed a supervised classifier based on a long short-term memory neural network (LSTM) stacked over a convolutional neural network (CNN) to detect automatically CAM-related debates from a popular breast cancer forum. Members' stances in these debates were also identified by a CNN-based classifier. Finally, posts automatically flagged as debates by the classifier were analyzed to explore which specific CAM therapies trigger debates more often than others. Our methods are able to detect CAM debates with F score of 77%, and identify stances with F score of 70%. The debate classifier identified about 1/6 of all CAM-related posts as debate. About 60% of CAM-related debate posts represent the supportive stance toward CAM usage. Qualitative analysis shows that some specific therapies, such as Gerson therapy and usage of laetrile, trigger debates frequently among members of the breast cancer community. This study demonstrates that neural networks can effectively locate debates on usage and effectiveness of controversial CAM therapies, and can help make sense of patients' opinions on such issues under dispute. As to CAM for breast cancer, perceptions of their effectiveness vary among patients. Many of the specific therapies trigger debates frequently and are worth more exploration in future work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.