Use of Automated Thematic Annotations for Small Data Sets in a Psychotherapeutic Context: Systematic Review of Machine Learning Algorithms
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: A growing body of literature has detailed the use of qualitative analyses to measure the therapeutic processes and intrinsic effectiveness of psychotherapies, which yield small databases. Nonetheless, these approaches have several limitations and machine learning algorithms are needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the use of machine learning for automated text classification for small data sets in the fields of psychiatry, psychology, and social sciences. This review will identify available algorithms and assess if automated classification of textual entities is comparable to the classification done by human evaluators. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the electronic databases of Medline, Web of Science, PsycNet (PsycINFO), and Google Scholar from their inception dates to 2021. The fields of psychiatry, psychology, and social sciences were selected as they include a vast array of textual entities in the domain of mental health that can be reviewed. Additional records identified through cross-referencing were used to find other studies. RESULTS: This literature search identified 5442 articles that were eligible for our study after the removal of duplicates. Following abstract screening, 114 full articles were assessed in their entirety, of which 107 were excluded. The remaining 7 studies were analyzed. Classification algorithms such as naive Bayes, decision tree, and support vector machine classifiers were identified. Support vector machine is the most used algorithm and best performing as per the identified articles. Prediction classification scores for the identified algorithms ranged from 53%-91% for the classification of textual entities in 4-7 categories. In addition, 3 of the 7 studies reported an interjudge agreement statistic; these were consistent with agreement statistics for text classification done by human evaluators. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review of available machine learning algorithms for automated text classification for small data sets in several fields (psychiatry, psychology, and social sciences) was conducted. We compared automated classification with classification done by human evaluators. Our results show that it is possible to automatically classify textual entities of a transcript based solely on small databases. Future studies are nevertheless needed to assess whether such algorithms can be implemented in the context of psychotherapies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».