Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41938540›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Evaluating sentiment analysis models in healthcare: addressing bias and enhancing interpretability.

Chenxu Wang, Zhuang Miao, Haoran Zeng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 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

3 authors.

Chenxu WangDepartment of Emergency, First Clinical Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Zhuang MiaoDepartment of Emergency, First Clinical Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Haoran ZengInner Mongolia University of Technology, Hohhot, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Advancing trustworthy AI applications in healthcare necessitates systems that are not only high-performing but also capable of explaining decisions and addressing biases, particularly in critical tasks like sentiment analysis on clinical narratives and patient feedback. Conventional sentiment analysis methods, while effective in general applications, struggle with domain shift, linguistic variability, and ambiguous labeling in healthcare, limiting their interpretability and fairness in clinical contexts. To overcome these limitations, a novel sentiment analysis framework is proposed to improve both accuracy and interpretability. Methods: This framework employs a formal probabilistic modeling approach that incorporates fine-grained sentiment granularity and domain-aware priors. Central to the framework is the Sentiment Modulated Encoding Network (SMEN), a transformer-based architecture featuring a gating mechanism that dynamically enhances sentiment-relevant features across network layers, enabling rich sentiment representation learning without external resources. Additionally, the Context Polarity Decoupling Scheme (CPDS) disentangles sentiment from domain-specific artifacts through a multi-stage adversarial and contrastive training process, accompanied by a polarity explanation module that provides token-level interpretability. Results and Discussion: Together, SMEN and CPDS form a robust system capable of producing domain-invariant and explainable sentiment predictions. Experimental results on multiple healthcare datasets demonstrate superior generalization and more transparent model attributions compared to existing approaches. This research contributes to the development of explainable and bias-resistant AI tools for healthcare and highlights potential avenues for interdisciplinary exploration at the interface of affective computing and clinical informatics.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CareModels, StatisticalBiasHumansbias-resistant AIContext Polarity Decoupling Schemeexplainable sentiment analysishealthcare narrativesSentiment Modulated Encoding Network

Identifiers

PMID41938540
PMCPMC13044008

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.