Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38572292›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in big data2024

Sentiment analysis of COP9-related tweets: a comparative study of pre-trained models and traditional techniques.

Sherif Elmitwalli, John Mehegan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in big data, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Sherif ElmitwalliTobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.
John MeheganTobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Sentiment analysis has become a crucial area of research in natural language processing in recent years. The study aims to compare the performance of various sentiment analysis techniques, including lexicon-based, machine learning, Bi-LSTM, BERT, and GPT-3 approaches, using two commonly used datasets, IMDB reviews and Sentiment140. The objective is to identify the best-performing technique for an exemplar dataset, tweets associated with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Ninth Conference of the Parties in 2021 (COP9). Methods: A two-stage evaluation was conducted. In the first stage, various techniques were compared on standard sentiment analysis datasets using standard evaluation metrics such as accuracy, F1-score, and precision. In the second stage, the best-performing techniques from the first stage were applied to partially annotated COP9 conference-related tweets. Results: In the first stage, BERT achieved the highest F1-scores (0.9380 for IMDB and 0.8114 for Sentiment 140), followed by GPT-3 (0.9119 and 0.7913) and Bi-LSTM (0.8971 and 0.7778). In the second stage, GPT-3 performed the best for sentiment analysis on partially annotated COP9 conference-related tweets, with an F1-score of 0.8812. Discussion: The study demonstrates the effectiveness of pre-trained models like BERT and GPT-3 for sentiment analysis tasks, outperforming traditional techniques on standard datasets. Moreover, the better performance of GPT-3 on the partially annotated COP9 tweets highlights its ability to generalize well to domain-specific data with limited annotations. This provides researchers and practitioners with a viable option of using pre-trained models for sentiment analysis in scenarios with limited or no annotated data across different domains.

Indexed as

BERTBi-LSTMCOP9GPT-3lexicon-basedLLMSsentiment analysis

Identifiers

PMID38572292
PMCPMC10987730

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.