ArticleInnovation in aging2025
Advanced topic modeling with large language models: analyzing social media content from dementia caregivers.
Article in Innovation in aging, 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.
- DynamiCare: A Dynamic Multi-Agent Framework for Interactive and Open-Ended Medical Decision-Making.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2026Article
- Innovation in geriatrics: what this series means for care.Innovation in aging · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: While traditional topic modeling methods have been applied to analyze social media content from dementia caregivers, they often struggle with semantic understanding and coherent topic generation. This study explores the direct application of large language models (LLMs) for topic modeling of caregiver tweets, aiming to leverage their advanced semantic comprehension capabilities. Research Design and Methods: We analyzed 231 870 tweets from dementia caregivers after preprocessing using ChatGPT as the primary topic modeling tool. To address context length limitations, we developed a 2-stage approach: first splitting the dataset into 226 batches of 1000 tweets each for initial topic extraction, then combining these results through a second-stage prompt for final topic synthesis. We compared our approach against 11 baseline methods, including Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), Gibbs Sampling Dirichlet Multinomial Mixture Model (GSDMM), their term-weighted variants, and state-of-the-art BERTopic models. Topic quality was evaluated using Sentence-BERT-based coherence scores, and topic comprehensiveness was assessed through both ChatGPT and human expert evaluation. Results: Our LLM-based approach achieved a coherence score of 0.358, significantly outperforming all baseline methods. Traditional approaches like GSDMM (0.317) and LDA (0.320), their term-weighted variants (ranging from 0.264 to 0.302), and BERTopic variants (approximately 0.30) showed lower coherence scores. The 2-stage batching strategy effectively handled the large dataset while maintaining topic quality and representativeness. Expert evaluation confirmed the topics' relevance to caregiver experiences and their comprehensive coverage of key themes. Discussion and Implications: This study introduces a novel methodology for applying LLMs to large-scale topic modeling tasks, demonstrating superior performance over traditional and state-of-the-art approaches. The significant improvement in coherence scores suggests that LLMs can better capture the semantic relationships within topics. Our approach addresses key challenges in context length limitations and prompt engineering, while providing more coherent and interpretable insights into caregiver experiences that can inform targeted support strategies.
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.