ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2024
Feature extraction from customer reviews using enhanced rules.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intelligent classification and dynamic evolution simulation study on air conditioner product demand characteristics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Discovering sequential patterns and interrelations among multiple diseases in electronic medical records using cSPADE algorithm.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025Article
- Enhancing sentiment analysis of online comments: a novel approach integrating topic modeling and deep learning.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
Opinion mining is gaining significant research interest, as it directly and indirectly provides a better avenue for understanding customers, their sentiments toward a service or product, and their purchasing decisions. However, extracting every opinion feature from unstructured customer review documents is challenging, especially since these reviews are often written in native languages and contain grammatical and spelling errors. Moreover, existing pattern rules frequently exclude features and opinion words that are not strictly nouns or adjectives. Thus, selecting suitable features when analyzing customer reviews is the key to uncovering their actual expectations. This study aims to enhance the performance of explicit feature extraction from product review documents. To achieve this, an approach that employs sequential pattern rules is proposed to identify and extract features with associated opinions. The improved pattern rules total 41, including 16 new rules introduced in this study and 25 existing pattern rules from previous research. An average calculated from the testing results of five datasets showed that the incorporation of this study's 16 new rules significantly improved feature extraction precision by 6%, recall by 6% and F-measure value by 5% compared to the contemporary approach. The new set of rules has proven to be effective in extracting features that were previously overlooked, thus achieving its objective of addressing gaps in existing rules. Therefore, this study has successfully enhanced feature extraction results, yielding an average precision of 0.91, an average recall value of 0.88, and an average F-measure of 0.89.
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.