ArticleHeliyon2024
Analysis of child development facts and myths using text mining techniques and classification models.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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
The rapid dissemination of misinformation on the internet complicates the decision-making process for individuals seeking reliable information, particularly parents researching child development topics. This misinformation can lead to adverse consequences, such as inappropriate treatment of children based on myths. While previous research has utilized text-mining techniques to predict child abuse cases, there has been a gap in the analysis of child development myths and facts. This study addresses this gap by applying text mining techniques and classification models to distinguish between myths and facts about child development, leveraging newly gathered data from publicly available websites. The research methodology involved several stages. First, text mining techniques were employed to pre-process the data, ensuring enhanced accuracy. Subsequently, the structured data was analysed using six robust Machine Learning (ML) classifiers and one Deep Learning (DL) model, with two feature extraction techniques applied to assess their performance across three different training-testing splits. To ensure the reliability of the results, cross-validation was performed using both k-fold and leave-one-out methods. Among the classification models tested, Logistic Regression (LR) demonstrated the highest accuracy, achieving a 90 % accuracy with the Bag-of-Words (BoW) feature extraction technique. LR stands out for its exceptional speed and efficiency, maintaining low testing time per statement (0.97 μs). These findings suggest that LR, when combined with BoW, is effective in accurately classifying child development information, thus providing a valuable tool for combating misinformation and assisting parents in making informed decisions.
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.