Public Trust in Artificial Intelligence Applications in Mental Health Care: Topic Modeling Analysis
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Mental disorders (MDs) impose heavy burdens on health care (HC) systems and affect a growing number of people worldwide. The use of mobile health (mHealth) apps empowered by artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being resorted to as a possible solution. OBJECTIVE: This study adopted a topic modeling (TM) approach to investigate the public trust in AI apps in mental health care (MHC) by identifying the dominant topics and themes in user reviews of the 8 most relevant mental health (MH) apps with the largest numbers of reviewers. METHODS: We searched Google Play for the top MH apps with the largest numbers of reviewers, from which we selected the most relevant apps. Subsequently, we extracted data from user reviews posted from January 1, 2020, to April 2, 2022. After cleaning the extracted data using the Python text processing tool spaCy, we ascertained the optimal number of topics, drawing on the coherence scores and used latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) TM to generate the most salient topics and related terms. We then classified the ascertained topics into different theme categories by plotting them onto a 2D plane via multidimensional scaling using the pyLDAvis visualization tool. Finally, we analyzed these topics and themes qualitatively to better understand the status of public trust in AI apps in MHC. RESULTS: From the top 20 MH apps with the largest numbers of reviewers retrieved, we chose the 8 (40%) most relevant apps: (1) Wysa: Anxiety Therapy Chatbot; (2) Youper Therapy; (3) MindDoc: Your Companion; (4) TalkLife for Anxiety, Depression & Stress; (5) 7 Cups: Online Therapy for Mental Health & Anxiety; (6) BetterHelp-Therapy; (7) Sanvello; and (8) InnerHour. These apps provided 14.2% (n=559), 11.0% (n=431), 13.7% (n=538), 8.8% (n=356), 14.1% (n=554), 11.9% (n=468), 9.2% (n=362), and 16.9% (n=663) of the collected 3931 reviews, respectively. The 4 dominant topics were topic 4 (cheering people up; n=1069, 27%), topic 3 (calming people down; n=1029, 26%), topic 2 (helping figure out the inner world; n=963, 25%), and topic 1 (being an alternative or complement to a therapist; n=870, 22%). Based on topic coherence and intertopic distance, topics 3 and 4 were combined into theme 3 (dispelling negative emotions), while topics 2 and 1 remained 2 separate themes: theme 2 (helping figure out the inner world) and theme 1 (being an alternative or complement to a therapist), respectively. These themes and topics, though involving some dissenting voices, reflected an overall high status of trust in AI apps. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to investigate the public trust in AI apps in MHC from the perspective of user reviews using the TM technique. The automatic text analysis and complementary manual interpretation of the collected data allowed us to discover the dominant topics hidden in a data set and categorize these topics into different themes to reveal an overall high degree of public trust. The dissenting voices from users, though only a few, can serve as indicators for health providers and app developers to jointly improve these apps, which will ultimately facilitate the treatment of prevalent MDs and alleviate the overburdened HC systems worldwide.
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.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 découle