Dataset Information

Confirm or refute?: A comparative study on citation sentiment classification in clinical research publications.

ABSTRACT: Quantifying scientific impact of researchers and journals relies largely on citation counts, despite the acknowledged limitations of this approach. The need for more suitable alternatives has prompted research into developing advanced metrics, such as h-index and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), as well as better citation categorization schemes to capture the various functions that citations serve in a publication. One such scheme involves citation sentiment: whether a reference paper is cited positively (agreement with the findings of the reference paper), negatively (disagreement), or neutrally. The ability to classify citation function in this manner can be viewed as a first step toward a more fine-grained bibliometrics. In this study, we compared several approaches, varying in complexity, for classification of citation sentiment in clinical trial publications. Using a corpus of 285 discussion sections from as many publications (a total of 4,182 citations), we developed a rule-based method as well as supervised machine learning models based on support vector machines (SVM) and two variants of deep neural networks; namely, convolutional neural network (CNN) and bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM). A CNN model augmented with hand-crafted features yielded the best performance (0.882 accuracy and 0.721 macro-F1 on held-out set). Our results show that baseline performances of traditional supervised learning algorithms and deep neural network architectures are similar and that hand-crafted features based on sentiment dictionaries and rhetorical structure allow neural network approaches to outperform traditional machine learning approaches for this task. We make the rule-based method and the best-performing neural network model publicly available at: https://github.com/kilicogluh/clinical-citation-sentiment.

SUBMITTER: Kilicoglu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7357398 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Confirm or refute?: A comparative study on citation sentiment classification in clinical research publications.

Kilicoglu Halil H Peng Zeshan Z Tafreshi Shabnam S Tran Tung T Rosemblat Graciela G Schneider Jodi J

Journal of biomedical informatics 20190210

Quantifying scientific impact of researchers and journals relies largely on citation counts, despite the acknowledged limitations of this approach. The need for more suitable alternatives has prompted research into developing advanced metrics, such as h-index and Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), as well as better citation categorization schemes to capture the various functions that citations serve in a publication. One such scheme involves citation sentiment: whether a reference paper is cited pos ...[more]

PMID: 30753947

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSentiment analysis is a significant yet difficult task in natural language processing. The linguistic peculiarities of Cantonese, including its high similarity with Standard Chinese, its grammatical and lexical uniqueness, and its colloquialism and multilingualism, make it different from other languages and pose additional challenges to sentiment analysis. Recent advances in models such as ChatGPT offer potential viable solutions.ObjectiveThis study investigated the efficacy of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in Cantonese sentiment analysis in the context of web-based counseling and compared their performance with other mainstream methods, including lexicon-based methods and machine learning approaches.MethodsWe analyzed transcripts from a web-based, text-based counseling service in Hong Kong, including a total of 131 individual counseling sessions and 6169 messages between counselors and help-seekers. First, a codebook was developed for human annotation. A simple prompt ("Is the sentiment of this Cantonese text positive, neutral, or negative? Respond with the sentiment label only.") was then given to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to label each message's sentiment. GPT-3.5 and GPT-4's performance was compared with a lexicon-based method and 3 state-of-the-art models, including linear regression, support vector machines, and long short-term memory neural networks.ResultsOur findings revealed ChatGPT's remarkable accuracy in sentiment classification, with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, respectively, achieving 92.1% (5682/6169) and 95.3% (5880/6169) accuracy in identifying positive, neutral, and negative sentiment, thereby outperforming the traditional lexicon-based method, which had an accuracy of 37.2% (2295/6169), and the 3 machine learning models, which had accuracies ranging from 66% (4072/6169) to 70.9% (4374/6169).ConclusionsAmong many text analysis techniques, ChatGPT demonstrates superior accuracy and emerges as a promising tool for Cantonese sentiment analysis. This study also highlights ChatGPT's applicability in real-world scenarios, such as monitoring the quality of text-based counseling services and detecting message-level sentiments in vivo. The insights derived from this study pave the way for further exploration into the capabilities of ChatGPT in the context of underresourced languages and specialized domains like psychotherapy and natural language processing.

Dataset Information

Confirm or refute?: A comparative study on citation sentiment classification in clinical research publications.

Publications

Confirm or refute?: A comparative study on citation sentiment classification in clinical research publications.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets