Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35685304›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2022

Validating GAN-BioBERT: A Methodology for Assessing Reporting Trends in Clinical Trials.

Joshua J Myszewski, Emily Klossowski, Patrick Meyer, Kristin Bevil, Lisa Klesius, Kristopher M Schroeder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Joshua J MyszewskiSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
Emily KlossowskiUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, United States.
Patrick MeyerDepartment of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
Kristin BevilDepartment of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
Lisa KlesiusDepartment of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
Kristopher M SchroederDepartment of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to validate a three-class sentiment classification model for clinical trial abstracts combining adversarial learning and the BioBERT language processing model as a tool to assess trends in biomedical literature in a clearly reproducible manner. We then assessed the model's performance for this application and compared it to previous models used for this task. Methods: Using 108 expert-annotated clinical trial abstracts and 2,000 unlabeled abstracts this study develops a three-class sentiment classification algorithm for clinical trial abstracts. The model uses a semi-supervised model based on the Bidirectional Encoder Representation from Transformers (BERT) model, a much more advanced and accurate method compared to previously used models based upon traditional machine learning methods. The prediction performance was compared to those previous studies. Results: The algorithm was found to have a classification accuracy of 91.3%, with a macro F1-Score of 0.92, significantly outperforming previous studies used to classify sentiment in clinical trial literature, while also making the sentiment classification finer grained with greater reproducibility. Conclusion: We demonstrate an easily applied sentiment classification model for clinical trial abstracts that significantly outperforms previous models with greater reproducibility and applicability to large-scale study of reporting trends.

Indexed as

clinical trialmeta-analysesnatural language processingpublication biassentiment analysis

Identifiers

PMID35685304
PMCPMC9170913

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.