Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36261675›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Deep learning for religious and continent-based toxic content detection and classification.

Ahmed Abbasi, Abdul Rehman Javed, Farkhund Iqbal, Natalia Kryvinska, Zunera Jalil

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Ahmed AbbasiDepartment of Creative Technologies, PAF Complex, E-9, Air University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Abdul Rehman JavedDepartment of Cyber Security, PAF Complex, E-9, Air University, Islamabad, Pakistan. abdulrehman.cs@au.edu.pk.
Farkhund IqbalCollege of Technological Innovation, Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Natalia KryvinskaInformation Systems Department, Faculty of Management, Comenius University in Bratislava, Odbojárov 10, 82005, Bratislava, 25, Slovakia. natalia.kryvinska@fm.uniba.sk.
Zunera JalilDepartment of Creative Technologies, PAF Complex, E-9, Air University, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With time, numerous online communication platforms have emerged that allow people to express themselves, increasing the dissemination of toxic languages, such as racism, sexual harassment, and other negative behaviors that are not accepted in polite society. As a result, toxic language identification in online communication has emerged as a critical application of natural language processing. Numerous academic and industrial researchers have recently researched toxic language identification using machine learning algorithms. However, Nontoxic comments, including particular identification descriptors, such as Muslim, Jewish, White, and Black, were assigned unrealistically high toxicity ratings in several machine learning models. This research analyzes and compares modern deep learning algorithms for multilabel toxic comments classification. We explore two scenarios: the first is a multilabel classification of Religious toxic comments, and the second is a multilabel classification of race or toxic ethnicity comments with various word embeddings (GloVe, Word2vec, and FastText) without word embeddings using an ordinary embedding layer. Experiments show that the CNN model produced the best results for classifying multilabel toxic comments in both scenarios. We compared the outcomes of these modern deep learning model performances in terms of multilabel evaluation metrics.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAlgorithmsHumansLanguageMachine LearningNatural Language Processing

Identifiers

PMID36261675
PMCPMC9581992

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.