Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41792455›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Enhancing trustworthiness of Arabic online health information quality evaluation using an enhanced BERT architecture with PCA and ICA feature weighting.

Yousef Baqraf, Pantea Keikhosrokiani, Yu-N Cheah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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

3 authors.

Yousef BaqrafSchool of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM Penang, Penang, Malaysia. baqraf.cs@student.usm.my.
Pantea KeikhosrokianiFaculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering and Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, PL 8000, 90014, Oulun yliopisto, Oulu, Finland.
Yu-N CheahSchool of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM Penang, Penang, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the exponential increase in the availability of online health information, its quality remains questionable, presenting a significant challenge to address. This study addresses this issue by using artificial intelligence techniques, such as deep learning, to evaluate the quality of health information and to mimic human-level evaluation capabilities. The key methodologies used in the study included an enhanced version of Arabic BERT for medical data, feature extraction techniques incorporating Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Independent Component Analysis (ICA), and modified loss functions using information entropy to improve the model's certainty and calibration during document classification. The results of the study were encouraging: the proposed PCA-based model achieved higher accuracy than the competing models and reached 94.7% on the dataset used, comparable to reported human-level performance. Finally, these findings may contribute to improving the reliability of online health information in Arabic contexts and provide a foundation for future efforts aimed at supporting healthcare decision-making. The methodologies and results presented here offer policymakers and researchers valuable tools to assess and ensure the trustworthiness of online health information.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationInformation SourcesInternetArtificial IntelligenceDeep LearningPrincipal Component AnalysisArab countriesArabic online health informationCalibrating AI systemsDeep learningOnline health informationQuality assessmentTrustworthiness

Identifiers

PMID41792455
PMCPMC13083897

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.