The Application of Text Mining Algorithms In Summarizing Trends in Anti-Epileptic Drug Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Content summarization is an important area of research in traditional data mining. The volume of studies published on anti-epileptic drugs (AED) has increased exponentially over the last two decades, making it an important area for the application of text mining based summarization algorithms. In the current study, we use text analytics algorithms to mine and summarize 10,000 PubMed abstracts related to anti-epileptic drugs published within the last 10 years. A Text Frequency – Inverse Document Frequency based filtering was applied to identify drugs with highest frequency of mentions within these abstracts. The US Food and Drug database was scrapped and linked to the results to quantify the most frequently mentioned modes of action and elucidate the pharmaceutical entities marketing these drugs. A sentiment analysis model was created to score the abstracts for sentiment positivity or negativity. Finally, a modified Latent Dirichlet Allocation topic model was generated to extract key topics associated with the most frequently mentioned AEDs. We found the top five most common drugs that appeared from the analysis were Gabapentin, Levetiracetam, Topiramate, Lamotrigine and Acetazolamide. We further listed the key topics associated with these drugs and the overall positive or negative sentiment associated with them. Results of this study provide accurate and data intensive insights on the progress of anti-epileptic drug research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".