Understanding the patient perspective of epilepsy treatment through text mining of online patient support groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Epilepsy is among the most common chronic neurologic diseases. There is a need for more data on patient perspectives of treatment to guide patient-centered care initiatives. Patients with epilepsy share their experiences on social media anonymously, but little is known about those discussions. Our aim was to learn what patients with epilepsy discuss regarding their condition and identify treatment-related themes from online patient support groups. METHODS: A total of 355,838 posts were collected from three online support groups for patients with epilepsy through a crawling script, and an analytical pipeline was built to identify patient conversation content through leveraging of multiple text mining methods. Results were also displayed by network visualization methods. RESULTS: Patients with epilepsy sought information about medical treatments, shared their treatment experiences, and sought help from other posters. Key themes related to treatments included the search for optimal personalized treatment strategies as well as identifying and coping with adverse effects. SIGNIFICANCE: This study showed the feasibility of learning about concerns of patients with epilepsy, especially treatment issues, through text mining methods. However, some manual selection and filtering were necessary to ensure quality results for the treatment analysis. Providers should be aware of online discussions and use analyses of such discussions to help guide effective patient engagement during care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".