ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2017
Detecting clinically related content in online patient posts.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Toward an Ethical Framework for the Text Mining of Social Media for Health Research: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in digital health · 2020Pooled it
- Reporting of Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research Utilizing Social Media Data on Public Health Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- The therapy is making me sick: how online portal communications between breast cancer patients and physicians indicate medication discontinuation.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
- Knowledge Discovery from Posts in Online Health Communities Using Unified Medical Language System.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patients with chronic health conditions use online health communities to seek support and information to help manage their condition. For clinically related topics, patients can benefit from getting opinions from clinical experts, and many are concerned about misinformation and biased information being spread online. However, a large volume of community posts makes it challenging for moderators and clinical experts, if there are any, to provide necessary information. Automatically identifying forum posts that need validated clinical resources can help online health communities efficiently manage content exchange. This automation can also assist patients in need of clinical expertise by getting proper help. We present our results on testing text classification models that efficiently and accurately identify community posts containing clinical topics. We annotated 1817 posts comprised of 4966 sentences of an existing online diabetes community. We found that our classifier performed the best (F-measure: 0.83, Precision: 0.79, Recall:0.86) when using Naïve Bayes algorithm, unigrams, bigrams, trigrams, and MetaMap Symantic Types. Training took 5 s. The classification process took a fraction of 1 s. We applied our classifier to another online diabetes community, and the results were: F-measure: 0.63, Precision: 0.57, Recall: 0.71. Our results show our model is feasible to scale to other forums on identifying posts containing clinical topic with common errors properly addressed.
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.