ArticlePloS one2018
Feature engineering for sentiment analysis in e-health forums.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Differences in Fear and Negativity Levels Between Formal and Informal Health-Related Websites: Analysis of Sentiments and Emotions.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Feature engineering of environmental covariates improves plant genomic-enabled prediction.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Examining a sentiment algorithm on session patient records in an eating disorder treatment setting: a preliminary study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Multiple-Perspective Data-Driven Analysis of Online Health Communities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparison of Pretraining Models and Strategies for Health-Related Social Media Text Classification.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Deep associative learning approach for bio-medical sentiment analysis utilizing unsupervised representation from large-scale patients' narratives.Personal and ubiquitous computing · 2021Article
- Determination of Patient Sentiment and Emotion in Ophthalmology: Infoveillance Tutorial on Web-Based Health Forum Discussions.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Understanding Imaging, Text, and Data in Gastroenterology.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020Article
- Sentiment Analysis in Health and Well-Being: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2020Review
- Unlink the Link Between COVID-19 and 5G Networks: An NLP and SNA Based Approach.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2020Article
- Analysis of Inter-Domain and Cross-Domain Drug Review Polarity Classification.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExploiting information in health-related social media services is of great interest for patients, researchers and medical companies. The challenge is, however, to provide easy, quick and relevant access to the vast amount of information that is available. One step towards facilitating information access to online health data is opinion mining. Even though the classification of patient opinions into positive and negative has been previously tackled, most works make use of machine learning methods and bags of words. Our first contribution is an extensive evaluation of different features, including lexical, syntactic, semantic, network-based, sentiment-based and word embeddings features to represent patient-authored texts for polarity classification. The second contribution of this work is the study of polar facts (i.e. objective information with polar connotations). Traditionally, the presence of polar facts has been neglected and research in polarity classification has been bounded to opinionated texts. We demonstrate the existence and importance of polar facts for the polarity classification of health information. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe annotate a set of more than 3500 posts to online health forums of breast cancer, crohn and different allergies, respectively. Each sentence in a post is manually labeled as "experience", "fact" or "opinion", and as "positive", "negative" and "neutral". Using this data, we train different machine learning algorithms and compare traditional bags of words representations with word embeddings in combination with lexical, syntactic, semantic, network-based and emotional properties of texts to automatically classify patient-authored contents into positive, negative and neutral. Beside, we experiment with a combination of textual and semantic representations by generating concept embeddings using the UMLS Metathesaurus.
resultsWe reach two main results: first, we find that it is possible to predict polarity of patient-authored contents with a very high accuracy (≈ 70 percent) using word embeddings, and that this considerably outperforms more traditional representations like bags of words; and second, when dealing with medical information, negative and positive facts (i.e. objective information) are nearly as frequent as negative and positive opinions and experiences (i.e. subjective information), and their importance for polarity classification is crucial.
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.