ArticleDigital health
How to detect fake online physician reviews: A deep learning approach.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred an increased interest in online healthcare and a surge in usage of online healthcare platforms, leading to a proliferation of user-generated online physician reviews. Yet, distinguishing between genuine and fake reviews poses a significant challenge. This study aims to address the challenges delineated above by developing a reliable and effective fake review detection model leveraging deep learning approaches based on a fake review dataset tailored to the context of Chinese online medical platforms. Methods: Inspired by prior research, this paper adopts a crowdsourcing approach to assemble the fake review dataset for Chinese online medical platforms. To develop the fake review detection models, classical machine learning models, along with deep learning models such as Convolutional Neural Network and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers, were applied. Results: Our experimental deep learning model exhibited superior performance in identifying fake reviews on online medical platforms, achieving a precision of 98.36% and an F2-Score of 97.97%. Compared to the traditional machine learning models (i.e., logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, ridge regression), this represents an 8.16% enhancement in precision and a 7.7% increase in F2-Score. Conclusion: Overall, this study provides a valuable contribution toward the development of an effective fake physician review detection model for online medical platforms.
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.