Transformer-Based Tool for Automated Fact-Checking of Online Health Information: Development Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Many people seek health-related information online. The significance of reliable information became particularly evident due to the potential dangers of misinformation. Therefore, discerning true and reliable information from false information has become increasingly challenging. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to present a pilot study in which we introduced a novel approach to automate the fact-checking process, leveraging PubMed resources as a source of truth using natural language processing transformer models to enhance the process. METHODS: A total of 538 health-related web pages, covering 7 different disease subjects, were manually selected by Factually Health Company. The process included the following steps: (1) using transformer models of bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT), BioBERT, and SciBERT, and traditional models of random forests and support vector machines, to classify the contents of web pages into 3 thematic categories (semiology, epidemiology, and management), (2) for each category in the web pages, a PubMed query was automatically produced using a combination of the "WellcomeBertMesh" and "KeyBERT" models, (3) top 20 related literatures were automatically extracted from PubMed, and finally, (4) the similarity checking techniques of cosine similarity and Jaccard distance were applied to compare the content of extracted literature and web pages. RESULTS: -score for management. For each of the 3 categories in a web page, 1 PubMed query was generated and with each query, the 20 most related, open access articles within the category of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were extracted. Less than 10% of the extracted literature was irrelevant; those were deleted. For each web page, an average of 23% of the sentences were found to be very similar to the literature. Moreover, during the evaluation, it was found that cosine similarity outperformed the Jaccard distance measure when comparing the similarity between sentences from web pages and academic papers vectorized by BERT. However, there was a significant issue with false positives in the retrieved sentences when compared with accurate similarities, as some sentences had a similarity score exceeding 80%, but they could not be considered similar sentences. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, we have proposed an approach to automate the fact-checking of health-related online information. Incorporating content from PubMed or other scientific article databases as trustworthy resources can automate the discovery of similarly credible information in the health domain.
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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».