ArticleDigital health
Ensemble learning for improved sentiment analysis in doctor-patient communication.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Objective: To fill the benchmarking gap in clinician-patient sentiment analysis, we compare deep learning, transformer, and ensemble models for three-class (low/medium/high) sentiment classification in doctor-patient consultations. Methods: We used a publicly available dataset of 3325 anonymized doctor-patient consultations from the Hugging Face repository (mahfoos/Patient-Doctor-Conversation) labeled as low, medium, or high severity. Preprocessing included text cleaning, tokenization, and padding; class balancing was applied only within the training split of each fold. Models evaluated were long short-term memory (LSTM), bidirectional LSTM (BiLSTM), convolutional neural networks (CNN), CNN-LSTM, and bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT); an ensemble (hard voting over Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and Support Vector Classifier (SVC)) was also tested. Evaluation used stratified five-fold cross-validation, with metrics reported as mean ± SD across outer test folds (accuracy; macro-averaged precision/recall/F1). Interpretability was examined via BERT attention and feature attributions. Results: The ensemble achieved the highest accuracy (75.5 ± 0.5), outperforming BERT (66.98 ± 0.6), CNN-LSTM (65.68 ± 0.9), CNN (64.17 ± 0.8), BiLSTM (64.82 ± 0.7), and LSTM (58.66 ± 0.19). Class-wise analysis showed robust detection of high-severity interactions (e.g. ensemble F1 = 90.8 ± 1.3), while low-severity remained most challenging; the ensemble improved class 0 recall (58.7 ± 1.0), and BERT provided the highest class 0 precision (65.5 ± 1.0). Conclusion: Under stratified five-fold cross-validation, ensemble learning delivered the strongest and most balanced performance for three-class sentiment classification of clinician-patient dialogue, while transformers offered complementary precision on difficult cases. Attention- and feature-attribution analyses improved transparency, supporting clinical interpretability. Future work should scale to larger, multimodal (text/audio/vision) and multilingual datasets, and develop privacy-preserving, lightweight models for real-time deployment in clinical settings.
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.