Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34127235›Full record

ArticleArtificial intelligence in medicine2021

Evaluation of clustering and topic modeling methods over health-related tweets and emails.

Juan Antonio Lossio-Ventura, Sergio Gonzales, Juandiego Morzan, Hugo Alatrista-Salas, Tina Hernandez-Boussard, Jiang Bian

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Artificial intelligence in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. RAG vs Reddit: Decoding Autism Conversations on Reddit with LLMs and Topic Modeling.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Juan Antonio Lossio-VenturaStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. Electronic address: jlossio@stanford.edu.
Sergio GonzalesStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Juandiego MorzanEngineering Faculty, Universidad del Pacífico, Lima, Peru.
Hugo Alatrista-SalasEngineering Faculty, Universidad del Pacífico, Lima, Peru.
Tina Hernandez-BoussardStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jiang BianDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Stanford University · USUniversity of the Pacific · PEStanford Medicine · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

Utilizing Electronic Health Records to Measure and Improve Prostate Cancer CareR01CA183962 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HERNANDEZ-BOUSSARD, TINA · 2015 to 2019
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA183962
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternet provides different tools for communicating with patients, such as social media (e.g., Twitter) and email platforms. These platforms provided new data sources to shed lights on patient experiences with health care and improve our understanding of patient-provider communication. Several existing topic modeling and document clustering methods have been adapted to analyze these new free-text data automatically. However, both tweets and emails are often composed of short texts; and existing topic modeling and clustering approaches have suboptimal performance on these short texts. Moreover, research over health-related short texts using these methods has become difficult to reproduce and benchmark, partially due to the absence of a detailed comparison of state-of-the-art topic modeling and clustering methods on these short texts.

methodsWe trained eight state-of- the-art topic modeling and clustering algorithms on short texts from two health-related datasets (tweets and emails): Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI), Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), LDA with Gibbs Sampling (GibbsLDA), Online LDA, Biterm Model (BTM), Online Twitter LDA, and Gibbs Sampling for Dirichlet Multinomial Mixture (GSDMM), as well as the k-means clustering algorithm with two different feature representations: TF-IDF and Doc2Vec. We used cluster validity indices to evaluate the performance of topic modeling and clustering: two internal indices (i.e. assessing the goodness of a clustering structure without external information) and five external indices (i.e. comparing the results of a cluster analysis to an externally known provided class labels).

resultsIn overall, for number of clusters (k) from 2 to 50, Online Twitter LDA and GSDMM achieved the best performance in terms of internal indices, while LSI and k-means with TF-IDF had the highest external indices. Also, of all tweets (N = 286, 971; HPV represents 94.6% of tweets and lynch syndrome represents 5.4%), for k = 2, most of the methods could respect this initial clustering distribution. However, we found model performance varies with the source of data and hyper-parameters such as the number of topics and the number of iterations used to train the models. We also conducted an error analysis using the Hamming loss metric, for which the poorest value was obtained by GSDMM on both datasets.

conclusionsResearchers hoping to group or classify health related short-text data can expect to select the most suitable topic modeling and clustering methods for their specific research questions. Therefore, we presented a comparison of the most common used topic modeling and clustering algorithms over two health-related, short-text datasets using both internal and external clustering validation indices. Internal indices suggested Online Twitter LDA and GSDMM as the best, while external indices suggested LSI and k-means with TF-IDF as the best. In summary, our work suggested researchers can improve their analysis of model performance by using a variety of metrics, since there is not a single best metric.

Indexed as

Electronic MailSocial MediaCluster AnalysisCommunicationHumansMachine LearningClusteringExternal cluster indicesInternal cluster indicesNatural language processingTopic modeling

Identifiers

PMID34127235
PMCPMC9040385
OpenAlexW3157575185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.