MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4254367530 · doi:10.2196/preprints.13296

Using Natural Language Processing to Examine the Uptake, Content, and Readability of Media Coverage of a Pan-Canadian Drug Safety Research Project: Cross-Sectional Observational Study (Preprint)

2019· preprint· en· W4254367530 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hossein Mohammadhassanzadeh, Ingrid Sketris, Robyn Traynor, Susan Alexander, Brandace Winquist, Samuel A. Stewart

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReadabilityObservational studySentenceComputer scienceNatural language processingMedicineInformation retrievalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Isotretinoin, for treating cystic acne, increases the risk of miscarriage and fetal abnormalities when taken during pregnancy. The Health Canada–approved product monograph for isotretinoin includes pregnancy prevention guidelines. A recent study by the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES) on the occurrence of pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes during isotretinoin therapy estimated poor adherence to these guidelines. Media uptake of this study was unknown; awareness of this uptake could help improve drug safety communication. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to understand how the media present pharmacoepidemiological research using the CNODES isotretinoin study as a case study. METHODS Google News was searched (April 25-May 6, 2016), using a predefined set of terms, for mention of the CNODES study. In total, 26 articles and 3 CNODES publications (original article, press release, and podcast) were identified. The article texts were cleaned (eg, advertisements and links removed), and the podcast was transcribed. A dictionary of 1295 unique words was created using natural language processing (NLP) techniques (term frequency-inverse document frequency, Porter stemming, and stop-word filtering) to identify common words and phrases. Similarity between the articles and reference publications was calculated using Euclidian distance; articles were grouped using hierarchical agglomerative clustering. Nine readability scales were applied to measure text readability based on factors such as number of words, difficult words, syllables, sentence counts, and other textual metrics. RESULTS The top 5 dictionary words were pregnancy (250 appearances), isotretinoin (220), study (209), drug (201), and women (185). Three distinct clusters were identified: Clusters 2 (5 articles) and 3 (4 articles) were from health-related websites and media, respectively; Cluster 1 (18 articles) contained largely media sources; 2 articles fell outside these clusters. Use of the term isotretinoin versus Accutane (a brand name of isotretinoin), discussion of pregnancy complications, and assignment of responsibility for guideline adherence varied between clusters. For example, the term pregnanc appeared most often in Clusters 1 (14.6 average times per article) and 2 (11.4) and relatively infrequently in Cluster 3 (1.8). Average readability for all articles was high (eg, Flesch-Kincaid, 13; Gunning Fog, 15; SMOG Index, 10; Coleman Liau Index, 15; Linsear Write Index, 13; and Text Standard, 13). Readability increased from Cluster 2 (Gunning Fog of 16.9) to 3 (12.2). It varied between clusters (average 13th-15th grade) but exceeded the recommended health information reading level (grade 6th to 8th), overall. CONCLUSIONS Media interpretation of the CNODES study varied, with differences in synonym usage and areas of focus. All articles were written above the recommended health information reading level. Analyzing media using NLP techniques can help determine drug safety communication effectiveness. This project is important for understanding how drug safety studies are taken up and redistributed in the media.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.487
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.071 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainReporting
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility→French-language works237,207→