ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2023
An experimental study on the performance of collaborative filtering based on user reviews for large-scale datasets.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Natural language processing for analyzing online customer reviews: a survey, taxonomy, and open research challenges.PeerJ. Computer science · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collaborative filtering (CF) approaches generate user recommendations based on user similarities. These similarities are calculated based on the overall (explicit) user ratings. However, in some domains, such ratings may be sparse or unavailable. User reviews can play a significant role in such cases, as implicit ratings can be derived from the reviews using sentiment analysis, a natural language processing technique. However, most current studies calculate the implicit ratings by simply aggregating the scores of all sentiment words appearing in reviews and, thus, ignoring the elements of sentiment degrees and aspects of user reviews. This study addresses this issue by calculating the implicit rating differently, leveraging the rich information in user reviews by using both sentiment words and aspect-sentiment word pairs to enhance the CF performance. It proposes four methods to calculate the implicit ratings on large-scale datasets: the first considers the degree of sentiment words, while the second exploits the aspects by extracting aspect-sentiment word pairs to calculate the implicit ratings. The remaining two methods combine explicit ratings with the implicit ratings generated by the first two methods. The generated ratings are then incorporated into different CF rating prediction algorithms to evaluate their effectiveness in enhancing the CF performance. Evaluative experiments of the proposed methods are conducted on two large-scale datasets: Amazon and Yelp. Results of the experiments show that the proposed ratings improved the accuracy of CF rating prediction algorithms and outperformed the explicit ratings in terms of three predictive accuracy metrics.
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.