Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41244964›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2025

Sentiment analysis of research attention: the Altmetric proof of concept.

Carlos Areia, Michael Taylor, Miguel Garcia, Jonathan Hernandez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Carlos AreiaDigital Science, London, United Kingdom.
Michael TaylorDigital Science, London, United Kingdom.
Miguel GarciaDigital Science, London, United Kingdom.
Jonathan HernandezDigital Science, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional bibliometric approaches to research impact assessment have predominantly relied on citation counts, overlooking the qualitative dimensions of how research is received and discussed. Altmetrics have expanded this perspective by capturing mentions across diverse platforms, yet most analyses remain limited to quantitative measures, failing to account for sentiment. This study aimed to introduce a novel artificial intelligence-driven sentiment analysis framework designed to evaluate the tone and intent behind research mentions on social media, with a primary focus on X (formerly Twitter). Our approach leverages a bespoke sentiment classification system, spanning seven levels from strong negative to strong positive, to capture the nuanced ways in which research is endorsed, critiqued, or debated. Using a machine learning model trained on 5,732 manually curated labels (ML2024) as a baseline (F1 score = 0.419), we developed and refined a Large Language Model (LLM)-based classification system through three iterative rounds of expert evaluation. The final AI-driven model demonstrated improved alignment with human assessments, achieving an F1 score of 0.577, significantly enhancing precision and recall over traditional methods. These findings underscore the potential of advanced AI methodologies in altmetric analysis, offering a richer, more context-aware understanding of research reception. This study laid the foundation for integrating sentiment analysis into Altmetric platforms, providing researchers, institutions, and policymakers with deeper insights into the societal discourse surrounding scientific outputs.

Indexed as

AIaltmetricsartificial intelligencediscourseLLMresearch attentionsentiment analysis

Identifiers

PMID41244964
PMCPMC12615389

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.