ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
Applying machine-learning to rapidly analyze large qualitative text datasets to inform the COVID-19 pandemic response: comparing human and machine-assisted topic analysis techniques.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Making the most of big qualitative datasets: a living systematic review of analysis methods.Frontiers in big data · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing human vs. machine-assisted analysis to develop a new approach for Big Qualitative Data Analysis.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Use of Artificial Intelligence in Public Health Education for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.Annals of global health · 2026Review
- Living well? The unintended consequences of highly popular commercial fitness apps through social listening using Machine-Assisted Topic Analysis: Evidence from X.British journal of health psychology · 2025Article
- Using machine-assisted topic analysis to expedite thematic analysis of free-text data: Exemplar investigation of factors influencing health behaviours and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic.British journal of health psychology · 2025Article
- Effect of a generative artificial intelligence digital scribe on pediatric provider documentation time, cognitive burden, and burnout.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to advance implementation science: potential opportunities and cautions.Implementation science : IS · 2024Article
- The use of artificial intelligence to improve mycetoma management.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- User feedback on the NHS test & Trace Service during COVID-19: The use of machine learning to analyse free-text data from 37,914 England adults.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Machine-assisted topic analysis (MATA) uses artificial intelligence methods to help qualitative researchers analyze large datasets. This is useful for researchers to rapidly update healthcare interventions during changing healthcare contexts, such as a pandemic. We examined the potential to support healthcare interventions by comparing MATA with "human-only" thematic analysis techniques on the same dataset (1,472 user responses from a COVID-19 behavioral intervention). Methods: In MATA, an unsupervised topic-modeling approach identified latent topics in the text, from which researchers identified broad themes. In human-only codebook analysis, researchers developed an initial codebook based on previous research that was applied to the dataset by the team, who met regularly to discuss and refine the codes. Formal triangulation using a "convergence coding matrix" compared findings between methods, categorizing them as "agreement", "complementary", "dissonant", or "silent". Results: Human analysis took much longer than MATA (147.5 vs. 40 h). Both methods identified key themes about what users found helpful and unhelpful. Formal triangulation showed both sets of findings were highly similar. The formal triangulation showed high similarity between the findings. All MATA codes were classified as in agreement or complementary to the human themes. When findings differed slightly, this was due to human researcher interpretations or nuance from human-only analysis. Discussion: Results produced by MATA were similar to human-only thematic analysis, with substantial time savings. For simple analyses that do not require an in-depth or subtle understanding of the data, MATA is a useful tool that can support qualitative researchers to interpret and analyze large datasets quickly. This approach can support intervention development and implementation, such as enabling rapid optimization during public health emergencies.
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.