Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37705634›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2023

An experimental study on the performance of collaborative filtering based on user reviews for large-scale datasets.

Sumaia Al-Ghuribi, Shahrul Azman Mohd Noah, Mawal Mohammed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Sumaia Al-GhuribiCenter for Artificial Intelligence Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Shahrul Azman Mohd NoahCenter for Artificial Intelligence Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Mawal MohammedDepartment of Software Engineering, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Collaborative filteringRecommender systemsSentiment analysisUser reviews

Identifiers

PMID37705634
PMCPMC10495999

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.