Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34332525›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

Machine learning in medicine: a practical introduction to natural language processing.

Conrad J Harrison, Chris J Sidey-Gibbons

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
14.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 161 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. AI in Medical Questionnaires: Scoping ReviewJournal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. The use of natural language processing in detecting and predicting falls within the healthcare setting: a systematic review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. A case study on generative artificial intelligence to extract the fundamental sleep parameters from polysomnography notes.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Conrad J HarrisonNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. conrad.harrison@medsci.ox.ac.uk.
Chris J Sidey-GibbonsMD Anderson Center for INSPiRED Cancer Care, Department of Symptom Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnstructured text, including medical records, patient feedback, and social media comments, can be a rich source of data for clinical research. Natural language processing (NLP) describes a set of techniques used to convert passages of written text into interpretable datasets that can be analysed by statistical and machine learning (ML) models. The purpose of this paper is to provide a practical introduction to contemporary techniques for the analysis of text-data, using freely-available software.

methodsWe performed three NLP experiments using publicly-available data obtained from medicine review websites. First, we conducted lexicon-based sentiment analysis on open-text patient reviews of four drugs: Levothyroxine, Viagra, Oseltamivir and Apixaban. Next, we used unsupervised ML (latent Dirichlet allocation, LDA) to identify similar drugs in the dataset, based solely on their reviews. Finally, we developed three supervised ML algorithms to predict whether a drug review was associated with a positive or negative rating. These algorithms were: a regularised logistic regression, a support vector machine (SVM), and an artificial neural network (ANN). We compared the performance of these algorithms in terms of classification accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity.

resultsLevothyroxine and Viagra were reviewed with a higher proportion of positive sentiments than Oseltamivir and Apixaban. One of the three LDA clusters clearly represented drugs used to treat mental health problems. A common theme suggested by this cluster was drugs taking weeks or months to work. Another cluster clearly represented drugs used as contraceptives. Supervised machine learning algorithms predicted positive or negative drug ratings with classification accuracies ranging from 0.664, 95% CI [0.608, 0.716] for the regularised regression to 0.720, 95% CI [0.664,0.776] for the SVM.

conclusionsIn this paper, we present a conceptual overview of common techniques used to analyse large volumes of text, and provide reproducible code that can be readily applied to other research studies using open-source software.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNatural Language ProcessingAlgorithmsHumansNeural Networks, ComputerSupport Vector Machine

Identifiers

PMID34332525
PMCPMC8325804
OpenAlexW3192175805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.