Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36346659›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

Examining Analytic Practices in Latent Dirichlet Allocation Within Psychological Science: Scoping Review.

Lauryn J Hagg, Stephanie S Merkouris, Gypsy A O'Dea, Lauren M Francis, Christopher J Greenwood, Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Elizabeth M Westrupp, Jacqui A Macdonald, George J Youssef

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors.

Lauryn J HaggCentre for Social and Early Emotional Development (SEED), School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7305-4980
Stephanie S MerkourisCentre for Social and Early Emotional Development (SEED), School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9037-6121
Gypsy A O'DeaCentre for Social and Early Emotional Development (SEED), School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5871-8398
Lauren M FrancisCentre for Social and Early Emotional Development (SEED), School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4050-5711
Christopher J GreenwoodCentre for Social and Early Emotional Development (SEED), School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9211-6312
Matthew Fuller-TyszkiewiczCentre for Social and Early Emotional Development (SEED), School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1145-6057
Elizabeth M WestruppCentre for Social and Early Emotional Development (SEED), School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6517-6064
Jacqui A MacdonaldCentre for Social and Early Emotional Development (SEED), School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9451-2709
George J YoussefCentre for Social and Early Emotional Development (SEED), School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6178-4895

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTopic modeling approaches allow researchers to analyze and represent written texts. One of the commonly used approaches in psychology is latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), which is used for rapidly synthesizing patterns of text within "big data," but outputs can be sensitive to decisions made during the analytic pipeline and may not be suitable for certain scenarios such as short texts, and we highlight resources for alternative approaches. This review focuses on the complex analytical practices specific to LDA, which existing practical guides for training LDA models have not addressed.

objectiveThis scoping review used key analytical steps (data selection, data preprocessing, and data analysis) as a framework to understand the methodological approaches being used in psychology research using LDA.

methodsA total of 4 psychology and health databases were searched. Studies were included if they used LDA to analyze written words and focused on a psychological construct or issue. The data charting processes were constructed and employed based on common data selection, preprocessing, and data analysis steps.

resultsA total of 68 studies were included. These studies explored a range of research areas and mostly sourced their data from social media platforms. Although some studies reported on preprocessing and data analysis steps taken, most studies did not provide sufficient detail for reproducibility. Furthermore, the debate surrounding the necessity of certain preprocessing and data analysis steps is revealed.

conclusionsOur findings highlight the growing use of LDA in psychological science. However, there is a need to improve analytical reporting standards and identify comprehensive and evidence-based best practice recommendations. To work toward this, we developed an LDA Preferred Reporting Checklist that will allow for consistent documentation of LDA analytic decisions and reproducible research outcomes.

Indexed as

Big DataDocumentationDatabases, FactualHumansReproducibility of Resultsanalysislatent Dirichlet allocationLDAmethodologyreview

Identifiers

PMID36346659
PMCPMC9682457

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.