ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
Detecting the patient's need for help with machine learning based on expressions.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeveloping machine learning models to support health analytics requires increased understanding about statistical properties of self-rated expression statements used in health-related communication and decision making. To address this, our current research analyzes self-rated expression statements concerning the coronavirus COVID-19 epidemic and with a new methodology identifies how statistically significant differences between groups of respondents can be linked to machine learning results.
methodsA quantitative cross-sectional study gathering the "need for help" ratings for twenty health-related expression statements concerning the coronavirus epidemic on an 11-point Likert scale, and nine answers about the person's health and wellbeing, sex and age. The study involved online respondents between 30 May and 3 August 2020 recruited from Finnish patient and disabled people's organizations, other health-related organizations and professionals, and educational institutions (n = 673). We propose and experimentally motivate a new methodology of influence analysis concerning machine learning to be applied for evaluating how machine learning results depend on and are influenced by various properties of the data which are identified with traditional statistical methods.
resultsWe found statistically significant Kendall rank-correlations and high cosine similarity values between various health-related expression statement pairs concerning the "need for help" ratings and a background question pair. With tests of Wilcoxon rank-sum, Kruskal-Wallis and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between groups we identified statistically significant rating differences for several health-related expression statements in respect to groupings based on the answer values of background questions, such as the ratings of suspecting to have the coronavirus infection and having it depending on the estimated health condition, quality of life and sex. Our new methodology enabled us to identify how statistically significant rating differences were linked to machine learning results thus helping to develop better human-understandable machine learning models.
conclusionsThe self-rated "need for help" concerning health-related expression statements differs statistically significantly depending on the person's background information, such as his/her estimated health condition, quality of life and sex. With our new methodology statistically significant rating differences can be linked to machine learning results thus enabling to develop better machine learning to identify, interpret and address the patient's needs for well-personalized care.
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.