Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37824464›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Research on performance variations of classifiers with the influence of pre-processing methods for Chinese short text classification.

Dezheng Zhang, Jing Li, Yonghong Xie, Aziguli Wulamu

Expression of concernAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It carries an expression of concern. 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Dezheng ZhangSchool of Computer and Communication Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Haidian, Beijing, China.
Jing LiSchool of Computer and Communication Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Haidian, Beijing, China.
Yonghong XieSchool of Computer and Communication Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Haidian, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3398-6262
Aziguli WulamuSchool of Computer and Communication Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Haidian, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Text pre-processing is an important component of a Chinese text classification. At present, however, most of the studies on this topic focus on exploring the influence of preprocessing methods on a few text classification algorithms using English text. In this paper we experimentally compared fifteen commonly used classifiers on two Chinese datasets using three widely used Chinese preprocessing methods that include word segmentation, Chinese specific stop word removal, and Chinese specific symbol removal. We then explored the influence of the preprocessing methods on the final classifications according to various conditions such as classification evaluation, combination style, and classifier selection. Finally, we conducted a battery of various additional experiments, and found that most of the classifiers improved in performance after proper preprocessing was applied. Our general conclusion is that the systematic use of preprocessing methods can have a positive impact on the classification of Chinese short text, using classification evaluation such as macro-F1, combination of preprocessing methods such as word segmentation, Chinese specific stop word and symbol removal, and classifier selection such as machine and deep learning models. We find that the best macro-f1s for categorizing text for the two datasets are 92.13% and 91.99%, which represent improvements of 0.3% and 2%, respectively over the compared baselines.

Indexed as

East Asian PeopleText MessagingAlgorithmsHumans

Identifiers

PMID37824464
PMCPMC10569603

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.