ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Weakly supervised text classification on free-text comments in patient-reported outcome measures.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge graph visualization and retrospective analysis of genetic research on pediatric cardiomyopathy (2000-2024).Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Identifying Patient-Reported Care Experiences in Free-Text Survey Comments: Topic Modeling Study.JMIR medical informatics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Free-text comments in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data provide insights into health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, these comments are typically analysed using manual methods, such as content analysis, which is labour-intensive and time-consuming. Machine learning analysis methods are largely unsupervised, necessitating post-analysis interpretation. Weakly supervised text classification (WSTC) can be a valuable analytical method of analysis for classifying domain-specific text data, especially when limited labelled data are available. In this paper, we applied five WSTC techniques to PROMs comment data to explore the extent to which they can be used to identify HRQoL themes reported by patients with prostate and colorectal cancer. Methods: The main HRQoL themes and associated keywords were identified from a scoping review. They were used to classify PROMs comments with these themes from two national PROMs datasets: colorectal cancer ( Results: Based on the 12 papers identified in the scoping review, we determined six main themes and corresponding keywords to label PROMs comments using WSTC methods. These themes were: Comorbidities, Daily Life, Health Pathways and Services, Physical Function, Psychological and Emotional Function, and Social Function. The performance of the methods varied across themes and between the datasets. While the best-performing model for both datasets, CorEx, attained weighted F1 scores of 0.57 (colorectal cancer) and 0.61 (prostate cancer), methods achieved an F1 score of up to 0.92 (Social Function) on individual themes. By evaluating the keywords extracted from the trained models, we saw that the methods that can utilise expert-driven seed terms and extrapolate based on limited data performed the best. Conclusions: Overall, evaluating these WSTC methods provided insight into their applicability for analysing PROMs comments. Evaluating the classification performance illustrated the potential and limitations of keyword-based WSTC in labelling PROMs comments when labelled data are limited.
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.