Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37362894›Full record

ArticleArtificial intelligence review2023

A systematic review of social network sentiment analysis with comparative study of ensemble-based techniques.

Dimple Tiwari, Bharti Nagpal, Bhoopesh Singh Bhati, Ashutosh Mishra, Manoj Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Artificial intelligence review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Dimple TiwariAmbedkar Institute of Advanced Communication Technologies and Research (GGSIPU), Delhi, India.
Bharti NagpalNSUT East Campus (Formerly Ambedkar Institute of Advanced Communication Technologies and Research), Delhi, India.
Bhoopesh Singh BhatiIndian Institute of Information Technology, Sonepat, Haryana, India.
Ashutosh MishraSchool of Integrated Technology, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea.
Manoj KumarFaculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Wollongong in Dubai, Dubai Knowledge Park, Dubai, UAE.ORCID 0000-0001-5113-0639

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sentiment Analysis (SA) of text reviews is an emerging concern in Natural Language Processing (NLP). It is a broadly active method for analyzing and extracting opinions from text using individual or ensemble learning techniques. This field has unquestionable potential in the digital world and social media platforms. Therefore, we present a systematic survey that organizes and describes the current scenario of the SA and provides a structured overview of proposed approaches from traditional to advance. This work also discusses the SA-related challenges, feature engineering techniques, benchmark datasets, popular publication platforms, and best algorithms to advance the automatic SA. Furthermore, a comparative study has been conducted to assess the performance of bagging and boosting-based ensemble techniques for social network SA. Bagging and Boosting are two major approaches of ensemble learning that contain various ensemble algorithms to classify sentiment polarity. Recent studies recommend that ensemble learning techniques have the potential of applicability for sentiment classification. This analytical study examines the bagging and boosting-based ensemble techniques on four benchmark datasets to provide extensive knowledge regarding ensemble techniques for SA. The efficiency and accuracy of these techniques have been measured in terms of TPR, FPR, Weighted F-Score, Weighted Precision, Weighted Recall, Accuracy, ROC-AUC curve, and Run-Time. Moreover, comparative results reveal that bagging-based ensemble techniques outperformed boosting-based techniques for text classification. This extensive review aims to present benchmark information regarding social network SA that will be helpful for future research in this field.

Indexed as

BaggingBoostingEnsemble techniquesMachine learningNatural language processingSocial-networks

Identifiers

PMID37362894
PMCPMC10091348

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.