ArticleFamily practice2026
Exploiting survey and online patient experience comments in general practice: validating a fine-tuned language model for automatic sentiment analysis.
Article in Family practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutomated sentiment analysis can be used to analyse free-text patient experience comments, but in health services research, it requires technical performance and methodological validity. Traditional models lack contextual understanding, whereas masked language models (MLMs) enable nuanced sentiment classification. This study is the first to fine-tune an MLM (NorBERT3large) on human-annotated data and evaluate the validity of four-category sentiment classifications across survey and online feedback in general practice. OBJECTIVE(S): To evaluate a fine-tuned MLM against human-annotated sentiment labels, compare its performance with traditional methods and a large language model, and assess convergent and known-groups validity using survey and online comments.
methodsNorBERT3large was fine-tuned on human-annotated free-text survey comments. Performance was evaluated using F1-scores. The model classified unseen online data. Construct validity was assessed per COSMIN guidelines through correlations with patient experience scores and subgroup analyses.
resultsThe fine-tuned NorBERT3large achieved high F1-scores on held-out survey test data and outperformed traditional models used in prior patient experience research, as well as a zero-shot large language model reference. On unseen online reviews, performance was high in the random sample and strongest for mixed and positive sentiment in the balanced evaluation set, while the rare neutral comments were difficult to classify reliably. Construct validity was supported by expected correlations with patient experience scores and known subgroup differences.
conclusionBeyond good classification performance, the findings support automated sentiment analysis as a valid patient experience measure in general practice. The sentiment classifications may complement traditional patient experience measures and help identify areas for quality improvement.
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.