ArticleFrontiers in big data2024
Enhancing sentiment and intent analysis in public health via fine-tuned Large Language Models on tobacco and e-cigarette-related tweets.
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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sentiment analysis in public health: a systematic review of the current state, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Scalable evaluation framework for retrieval augmented generation in tobacco research using large Language models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Background: Accurate sentiment analysis and intent categorization of tobacco and e-cigarette-related social media content are critical for public health research, yet they necessitate specialized natural language processing approaches. Objective: To compare pre-trained and fine-tuned Flan-T5 models for intent classification and sentiment analysis of tobacco and e-cigarette tweets, demonstrating the effectiveness of pre-training a lightweight large language model for domain specific tasks. Methods: Three Flan-T5 classification models were developed: (1) tobacco intent, (2) e-cigarette intent, and (3) sentiment analysis. Domain-specific datasets with tobacco and e-cigarette tweets were created using GPT-4 and validated by tobacco control specialists using a rigorous evaluation process. A standardized rubric and consensus mechanism involving domain specialists ensured high-quality datasets. The Flan-T5 Large Language Models were fine-tuned using Low-Rank Adaptation and evaluated against pre-trained baselines on the datasets using accuracy performance metrics. To further assess model generalizability and robustness, the fine-tuned models were evaluated on real-world tweets collected around the COP9 event. Results: In every task, fine-tuned models performed much better than pre-trained models. Compared to the pre-trained model's accuracy of 0.33, the fine-tuned model achieved an overall accuracy of 0.91 for tobacco intent classification. The fine-tuned model achieved an accuracy of 0.93 for e-cigarette intent, which is higher than the accuracy of 0.36 for the pre-trained model. The fine-tuned model significantly outperformed the pre-trained model's accuracy of 0.65 in sentiment analysis, achieving an accuracy of 0.94 for sentiments. Conclusion: The effectiveness of lightweight Flan-T5 models in analyzing tweets associated with tobacco and e-cigarette is significantly improved by domain-specific fine-tuning, providing highly accurate instruments for tracking public conversation on tobacco and e-cigarette. The involvement of domain specialists in dataset validation ensured that the generated content accurately represented real-world discussions, thereby enhancing the quality and reliability of the results. Research on tobacco control and the formulation of public policy could be informed by these findings.
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.