Sentiment Analysis Surrounding Blepharoplasty in Online Health Forums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Upper and lower blepharoplasty are among the most common procedures in aesthetic surgery and are often emotionally laden due to the subjective nature of outcomes and implications with beauty and self-identity. This article capitalizes on the increasing wealth of patient-provided health information online and is the first to analyze the emotions surrounding blepharoplasty discussions in an open internet health forum, MedHelp. Methods: We used Python to scrape MedHelp for threads that contained "blepharoplasty" and then used IBM Watson Natural Language Understanding to perform sentiment analyses, calculating a general sentiment score (-1 to +1) as well as emotion scores for anger, sadness, joy, fear, and disgust (0 to 1) for posts and keywords contained within the posts. Keywords were then manually grouped into five distinct clinical categories: symptoms, doctor, treatment, medication, and body. Results: We collected 52 threads containing "blepharoplasty," yielding 154 posts and 1365 keywords. The average sentiment score was negative among all posts (-0.15) and keywords (-0.30). Among all posts and keywords, sadness had the highest score and disgust had the lowest score. Conclusions: Fear and sadness are the predominant emotions for blepharoplasty patients online, and the most negative symptoms cited are not ones that surgeons typically expect.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".