Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37705658›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2023

Integrating multi-criteria decision-making with hybrid deep learning for sentiment analysis in recommender systems.

Swathi Angamuthu, Pavel Trojovský

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

2 authors.

Swathi AngamuthuDepartment of Mathematics, University of Hradec Králové, Rokitanskeho, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.
Pavel TrojovskýDepartment of Mathematics, University of Hradec Králové, Rokitanskeho, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Expert assessments with pre-defined numerical or language terms can limit the scope of decision-making models. We propose that decision-making models can incorporate expert judgments expressed in natural language through sentiment analysis. To help make more informed choices, we present the Sentiment Analysis in Recommender Systems with Multi-person, Multi-criteria Decision Making (SAR-MCMD) method. This method compiles the opinions of several experts by analyzing their written reviews and, if applicable, their star ratings. The growth of online applications and the sheer amount of available information have made it difficult for users to decide which information or products to select from the Internet. Intelligent decision-support technologies, known as recommender systems, leverage users' preferences to suggest what they might find interesting. Recommender systems are one of the many approaches to dealing with information overload issues. These systems have traditionally relied on single-grading algorithms to predict and communicate users' opinions for observed items. To boost their predictive and recommendation abilities, multi-criteria recommender systems assign numerous ratings to various qualities of products. We created, manually annotated, and released the technique in a case study of restaurant selection using 'TripAdvisor reviews', 'TMDB 5000 movies', and an 'Amazon dataset'. In various areas, cutting-edge deep learning approaches have led to breakthrough progress. Recently, researchers have begun to focus on applying these methods to recommendation systems, and different deep learning-based recommendation models have been suggested. Due to its proficiency with sparse data in large data systems and its ability to construct complex models that characterize user performance for the recommended procedure, deep learning is a formidable tool. In this article, we introduce a model for a multi-criteria recommender system that combines the best of both deep learning and multi-criteria decision-making. According to our findings, the suggested system may give customers very accurate suggestions with a sentiment analysis accuracy of 98%. Additionally, the metrics, accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score are where the system truly shines, much above what has been achieved in the past.

Indexed as

Complex systemDecision makingDeep learningMulti-criteria decision makingRecommendation

Identifiers

PMID37705658
PMCPMC10495971

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.