ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Finding the Needle in the Haystack: Can Natural Language Processing of Students' Evaluations of Teachers Identify Teaching Concerns?
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInstitutions rely on student evaluations of teaching (SET) to ascertain teaching quality. Manual review of narrative comments can identify faculty with teaching concerns but can be resource and time-intensive.
aimTo determine if natural language processing (NLP) of SET comments completed by learners on clinical rotations can identify teaching quality concerns. SETTING AND
participantsSingle institution retrospective cohort analysis of SET (n = 11,850) from clinical rotations between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The performance of three NLP dictionaries created by the research team was compared to an off-the-shelf Sentiment Dictionary. PROGRAM EVALUATION: The Expert Dictionary had an accuracy of 0.90, a precision of 0.62, and a recall of 0.50. The Qualifier Dictionary had lower accuracy (0.65) and precision (0.16) but similar recall (0.67). The Text Mining Dictionary had an accuracy of 0.78 and a recall of 0.24. The Sentiment plus Qualifier Dictionary had good accuracy (0.86) and recall (0.77) with a precision of 0.37. DISCUSSION: NLP methods can identify teaching quality concerns with good accuracy and reasonable recall, but relatively low precision. An existing, free, NLP sentiment analysis dictionary can perform nearly as well as dictionaries requiring expert coding or manual creation.
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.