Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39957863›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025

Evolving techniques in sentiment analysis: a comprehensive review.

Mahander Kumar, Lal Khan, Hsien-Tsung Chang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mahander KumarDepartment of Computer Science, Mir Chakar Khan Rind University, Sibi, Balochistan, Pakistan.
Lal KhanDepartment of Computer Science, IBADAT Internationl University Islamabad, Pakpattan Campus, Pakistan.
Hsien-Tsung ChangDepartment of Computer Science and Information Engineering, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the rapid expansion of social media and e-commerce platforms, an unprecedented volume of user-generated content has emerged, offering organizations, governments, and researchers invaluable insights into public sentiment. Yet, the vast and unstructured nature of this data challenges traditional analysis methods. Sentiment analysis, a specialized field within natural language processing, has evolved to meet these challenges by automating the detection and categorization of opinions and emotions in text. This review comprehensively examines the evolving techniques in sentiment analysis, detailing foundational processes such as data gathering and feature extraction. It explores a spectrum of methodologies, from classical word embedding techniques and machine learning algorithms to recent contextual embedding and advanced transformer models like Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT), Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT), and T5. With a critical comparison of these methods, this article highlights their appropriate uses and limitations. Additionally, the review provides a thorough overview of current trends, insights into future directions, and a critical exploration of unresolved challenges. By synthesizing these developments, this review equips researchers with a solid foundation for assessing the current state of sentiment analysis and guiding future advancements in this dynamic field.

Indexed as

Natural language processingSentiment analysisSocial media

Identifiers

PMID39957863
PMCPMC11828215

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.