ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2022
Classification of movie reviews using term frequency-inverse document frequency and optimized machine learning algorithms.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prediction of sentiment polarity in restaurant reviews using an ordinal regression approach based on evolutionary XGBoost.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- Analysis and prediction of research hotspots and trends in heart failure research.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2024Article
- Analysis and prediction of research hotspots and trends in pediatric medicine from 2,580,642 studies published between 1940 and 2021.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2023Article
- Article
- A semantic similarity analysis of multiple English translations ofFrontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Internet Movie Database (IMDb), being one of the popular online databases for movies and personalities, provides a wide range of movie reviews from millions of users. This provides a diverse and large dataset to analyze users' sentiments about various personalities and movies. Despite being helpful to provide the critique of movies, the reviews on IMDb cannot be read as a whole and requires automated tools to provide insights on the sentiments in such reviews. This study provides the implementation of various machine learning models to measure the polarity of the sentiments presented in user reviews on the IMDb website. For this purpose, the reviews are first preprocessed to remove redundant information and noise, and then various classification models like support vector machines (SVM), Naïve Bayes classifier, random forest, and gradient boosting classifiers are used to predict the sentiment of these reviews. The objective is to find the optimal process and approach to attain the highest accuracy with the best generalization. Various feature engineering approaches such as term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF), bag of words, global vectors for word representations, and Word2Vec are applied along with the hyperparameter tuning of the classification models to enhance the classification accuracy. Experimental results indicate that the SVM obtains the highest accuracy when used with TF-IDF features and achieves an accuracy of 89.55%. The sentiment classification accuracy of the models is affected due to the contradictions in the user sentiments in the reviews and assigned labels. For tackling this issue, TextBlob is used to assign a sentiment to the dataset containing reviews before it can be used for training. Experimental results on TextBlob assigned sentiments indicate that an accuracy of 92% can be obtained using the proposed model.
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.