Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42247372›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Focusing on legal cases: Automatic classification of legal documents with sentence embeddings and deep learning models.

Fawaz Khaled Alarfaj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

1 author.

Fawaz Khaled AlarfajDepartment of Management Information Systems, School of Business, King Faisal University, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6598-6240

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The justice system is indispensable to any society as it enforces the rule of law, safeguards fundamental rights, and ensures the equitable resolution of disputes through structured legal frameworks. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly advanced the legal and justice system by automating time-intensive tasks such as document review and contract analysis, thereby enhancing efficiency and reducing human error. Additionally, AI-powered predictive analytics and decision support systems have improved access to justice by providing data-driven insights, enabling faster case resolution, and ensuring more consistent application of the law. Legal document classification using AI techniques is imperative as it enables efficient organization, retrieval, and analysis of vast volumes of legal texts, enhancing accuracy, reducing manual effort, and facilitating faster decision-making in legal processes. In this research study, the main aim is to classify legal text documents using Machine Learning (ML) and state-of-the-art Deep Learning (DL) algorithms. Using a real-world dataset that consists of thousands of legal documents having complex language related to legal cases poses a challenging natural language understanding task by applying various textual features, deep features, and advanced sentence embeddings. The results reveal that the ensemble learning model of Extremely Randomized Trees shows better results with 89% accuracy, as it aggregates the results of multiple decorrelated decision trees to enhance predictive accuracy and control over-fitting. However, the best results of 96% are achieved with sentence embeddings. Sentence embeddings with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks are highly effective in Natural Language Processing (NLP) due to their ability to capture complex semantic and syntactic information within text.

Identifiers

PMID42247372
PMCPMC13240898

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.