ArticleRoyal Society open science2025
Human-interpretable clustering of short text using large language models.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reconceptualizing Scoring Reliability Through Linguistic Similarity.Educational and psychological measurement · 2025Article
- Observer-Independent Assessment of Content Overlap in Mental Health Questionnaires: Large Language Model-Based Study.JMIR AI · 2025Article
- Human-interpretable clustering of short text using large language models.Royal Society open science · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clustering short text is a difficult problem, owing to the low word co-occurrence between short text documents. This work shows that large language models (LLMs) can overcome the limitations of traditional clustering approaches by generating embeddings that capture the semantic nuances of short text. In this study, clusters are found in the embedding space using Gaussian mixture modelling. The resulting clusters are found to be more distinctive and more human-interpretable than clusters produced using the popular methods of doc2vec and latent Dirichlet allocation. The success of the clustering approach is quantified using human reviewers and through the use of a generative LLM. The generative LLM shows good agreement with the human reviewers and is suggested as a means to bridge the 'validation gap' which often exists between cluster production and cluster interpretation. The comparison between LLM coding and human coding reveals intrinsic biases in each, challenging the conventional reliance on human coding as the definitive standard for cluster validation.
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.