ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024
Examining a sentiment algorithm on session patient records in an eating disorder treatment setting: a preliminary study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Future of Artificial Intelligence in Mental Health Nursing Practice: An Integrative Review.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinicians collect session therapy notes within patient session records. Session records contain valuable information about patients' treatment progress. Sentiment analysis is a tool to extract emotional tones and states from text input and could be used to evaluate patients' sentiment during treatment over time. This preliminary study aims to investigate the validity of automated sentiment analysis on session patient records within an eating disorder (ED) treatment context against the performance of human raters. Methods: A total of 460 patient session records from eight participants diagnosed with an ED were evaluated on their overall sentiment by an automated sentiment analysis and two human raters separately. The inter-rater agreement (IRR) between the automated analysis and human raters and IRR among the human raters was analyzed by calculating the intra-class correlation (ICC) under a continuous interpretation and weighted Cohen's kappa under a categorical interpretation. Furthermore, differences regarding positive and negative matches between the human raters and the automated analysis were examined in closer detail. Results: The ICC showed a moderate automated-human agreement (ICC = 0.55), and the weighted Cohen's kappa showed a fair automated-human (k = 0.29) and substantial human-human agreement (k = 0.68) for the evaluation of overall sentiment. Furthermore, the automated analysis lacked words specific to an ED context. Discussion/conclusion: The automated sentiment analysis performed worse in discerning sentiment from session patient records compared to human raters and cannot be used within practice in its current state if the benchmark is considered adequate enough. Nevertheless, the automated sentiment analysis does show potential in extracting sentiment from session records. The automated analysis should be further developed by including context-specific ED words, and a more solid benchmark, such as patients' own mood, should be established to compare the performance of the automated analysis to.
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.