ArticleArtificial intelligence review2023
A systematic review of social network sentiment analysis with comparative study of ensemble-based techniques.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel lexicon dictionary and CNN-LSTM employed hybrid approach for sentiment detection of COVID-19 vaccines.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- ViralMultiNet: A structure-aware multimodal framework for viral protein function prediction in wastewater surveillance.PloS one · 2026Article
- Accurate Prediction of Protein Tertiary and Quaternary Stability Using Fine-Tuned Protein Language Models and Free Energy Perturbation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Constructing a risk screen for attention difficulty in U.S. adults using six machine learning methods.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Analyzing digital societal interactions and sentiment classification in Twitter (X) during critical events in Chile.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Sentiment analysis of COP9-related tweets: a comparative study of pre-trained models and traditional techniques.Frontiers in big data · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.