Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40567690›Full record

ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025

Evaluation of unsupervised static topic models' emergence detection ability.

Xue Li, Ciro D Esposito, Paul Groth, Jonathan Sitruk, Balazs Szatmari, Nachoem Wijnberg

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Xue LiInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5451-1867
Ciro D EspositoBusiness School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6444-7894
Paul GrothInformatics Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0183-6910
Jonathan SitrukBusiness School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Balazs SzatmariBusiness School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Nachoem WijnbergBusiness School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detecting emerging topics is crucial for understanding research trends, technological advancements, and shifts in public discourse. While unsupervised topic modeling techniques such as Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), BERTopic, and CoWords clustering are widely used for topic extraction, their ability to retrospectively detect emerging topics without relying on ground truth labels has not been systematically compared. This gap largely stems from the lack of a dedicated evaluation metric for measuring emergence detection. In this study, we introduce a quantitative evaluation metric to assess the effectiveness of topic models in detecting emerging topics. We evaluate three topic modeling approaches using both qualitative analysis and our proposed emergence detection metric. Our results indicate that, qualitatively, CoWords identifies emerging topics earlier than LDA and BERTopics. Quantitatively, our evaluation metric demonstrates that LDA achieves an average F1 score of 80.6% in emergence detection, outperforming BERTopic by 24.0%. These findings highlight the strengths and limitations of different topic models for emergence detection, while our proposed metric provides a robust framework for future benchmarking in this area.

Indexed as

Static topic modelingTopic emergence detectionUnsupervised topic modeling

Identifiers

PMID40567690
PMCPMC12192802

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.