MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200503707 · doi:10.2196/25110

Predicting the Easiness and Complexity of English Health Materials for International Tertiary Students With Linguistically Enhanced Machine Learning Algorithms: Development and Validation Study

2021· article· en· W3200503707 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wenxiu Xie, Meng Ji, Tianyong Hao, Chi-Yin Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityRandom forestMachine learningArtificial intelligenceSupport vector machineComputer scienceFeature selectionGradient boostingBoosting (machine learning)Algorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing body of research on the development of machine learning algorithms in the evaluation of online health educational resources for specific readerships. Machine learning algorithms are known for their lack of interpretability compared with statistics. Given their high predictive precision, improving the interpretability of these algorithms can help increase their applicability and replicability in health educational research and applied linguistics, as well as in the development and review of new health education resources for effective and accessible health education. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to develop a linguistically enriched machine learning model to predict binary outcomes of online English health educational resources in terms of their easiness and complexity for international tertiary students. METHODS: Logistic regression emerged as the best performing algorithm compared with support vector machine (SVM) (linear), SVM (radial basis function), random forest, and extreme gradient boosting on the transformed data set using L2 normalization. We applied recursive feature elimination with SVM to perform automatic feature selection. The automatically selected features (n=67) were then further streamlined through expert review. The finalized feature set of 22 semantic features achieved a similar area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared with the initial (n=115) and automatically selected feature sets (n=67). Logistic regression with the linguistically enhanced feature set (n=22) exhibited important stability and robustness on the training data of different sizes (20%, 40%, 60%, and 80%), and showed consistently high performance when compared with the other 4 algorithms (SVM [linear], SVM [radial basis function], random forest, and extreme gradient boosting). RESULTS: We identified semantic features (with positive regression coefficients) contributing to the prediction of easy-to-understand online health texts and semantic features (with negative regression coefficients) contributing to the prediction of hard-to-understand health materials for readers with nonnative English backgrounds. Language complexity was explained by lexical difficulty (rarity and medical terminology), verbs typical of medical discourse, and syntactic complexity. Language easiness of online health materials was associated with features such as common speech act verbs, personal pronouns, and familiar reasoning verbs. Successive permutation of features illustrated the interaction between these features and their impact on key performance indicators of the machine learning algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: The new logistic regression model developed exhibited consistency, scalability, and, more importantly, interpretability based on existing health and linguistic research. It was found that low and high linguistic accessibilities of online health materials were explained by 2 sets of distinct semantic features. This revealed the inherent complexity of effective health communication beyond current readability analyses, which were limited to syntactic complexity and lexical difficulty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207