Dataset Information

A critical analysis of COVID-19 research literature: Text mining approach.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Among the stakeholders of COVID-19 research, clinicians particularly experience difficulty keeping up with the deluge of SARS-CoV-2 literature while performing their much needed clinical duties. By revealing major topics, this study proposes a text-mining approach as an alternative to navigating large volumes of COVID-19 literature.

Materials and methods

We obtained 85,268 references from the NIH COVID-19 Portfolio as of November 21. After the exclusion based on inadequate abstracts, 65,262 articles remained in the final corpus. We utilized natural language processing to curate and generate the term list. We applied topic modeling analyses and multiple correspondence analyses to reveal the major topics and the associations among topics, journal countries, and publication sources.

Results

In our text mining analyses of NIH's COVID-19 Portfolio, we discovered two sets of eleven major research topics by analyzing abstracts and titles of the articles separately. The eleven major areas of COVID-19 research based on abstracts included the following topics: 1) Public Health, 2) Patient Care & Outcomes, 3) Epidemiologic Modeling, 4) Diagnosis and Complications, 5) Mechanism of Disease, 6) Health System Response, 7) Pandemic Control, 8) Protection/Prevention, 9) Mental/Behavioral Health, 10) Detection/Testing, 11) Treatment Options. Further analyses revealed that five (2,3,4,5, and 9) of the eleven abstract-based topics showed a significant correlation (ranked from moderate to weak) with title-based topics.

Conclusion

By offering up the more dynamic, scalable, and responsive categorization of published literature, our study provides valuable insights to the stakeholders of COVID-19 research, particularly clinicians.

SUBMITTER: Zengul FD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8214804 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is still rampant all over the world. Until now, the COVID-19 vaccine is the most promising measure to subdue contagion and achieve herd immunity. However, public vaccination intention is suboptimal. A clear division lies between medical professionals and laypeople. While most professionals eagerly promote the vaccination campaign, some laypeople exude suspicion, hesitancy, and even opposition toward COVID-19 vaccines.ObjectiveThis study aims to employ a text mining approach to examine expression differences and thematic disparities between the professionals and laypeople within the COVID-19 vaccine context.MethodsWe collected 3196 answers under 65 filtered questions concerning the COVID-19 vaccine from the China-based question and answer forum Zhihu. The questions were classified into 5 categories depending on their contents and description: adverse reactions, vaccination, vaccine effectiveness, social implications of vaccine, and vaccine development. Respondents were also manually coded into two groups: professional and laypeople. Automated text analysis was performed to calculate fundamental expression characteristics of the 2 groups, including answer length, attitude distribution, and high-frequency words. Furthermore, structural topic modeling (STM), as a cutting-edge branch in the topic modeling family, was used to extract topics under each question category, and thematic disparities were evaluated between the 2 groups.ResultsLaypeople are more prevailing in the COVID-19 vaccine-related discussion. Regarding differences in expression characteristics, the professionals posted longer answers and showed a conservative stance toward vaccine effectiveness than did laypeople. Laypeople mentioned countries more frequently, while professionals were inclined to raise medical jargon. STM discloses prominent topics under each question category. Statistical analysis revealed that laypeople preferred the "safety of Chinese-made vaccine" topic and other vaccine-related issues in other countries. However, the professionals paid more attention to medical principles and professional standards underlying the COVID-19 vaccine. With respect to topics associated with the social implications of vaccines, the 2 groups showed no significant difference.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that laypeople and professionals share some common grounds but also hold divergent focuses toward the COVID-19 vaccine issue. These incongruities can be summarized as "qualitatively different" in perspective rather than "quantitatively different" in scientific knowledge. Among those questions closely associated with medical expertise, the "qualitatively different" characteristic is quite conspicuous. This study boosts the current understanding of how the public perceives the COVID-19 vaccine, in a more nuanced way. Web-based question and answer forums are a bonanza for examining perception discrepancies among various identities. STM further exhibits unique strengths over the traditional topic modeling method in statistically testing the topic preference of diverse groups. Public health practitioners should be keenly aware of the cognitive differences between professionals and laypeople, and pay special attention to the topics with significant inconsistency across groups to build consensus and promote vaccination effectively.