Development of a patients’ satisfaction analysis system using machine learning and lexicon-based methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients' rights are integral to medical ethics. This study aimed to perform sentiment analysis and opinion mining on patients' messages by a combination of lexicon-based and machine learning methods to identify positive or negative comments and to determine the different ward and staff names mentioned in patients' messages. METHODS: The level of satisfaction and observance of the rights of 250 service recipients of the hospital was evaluated through the related checklists by the evaluator. In total, 822 Persian messages, composed of 540 negative and 282 positive comments, were collected and labeled by the evaluator. Pre-processing was performed on the messages and followed by 2 feature vectors which were extracted from the messages, including the term frequency-inverse document frequency (TFIDF) vector and a combination of the multifeature (MF) (a lexicon-based method) and TFIDF (MF + TFIDF) vectors. Six feature selectors and 5 classifiers were used in this study. For the evaluations, 5-fold cross-validation with different metrics including area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy (ACC), F1 score, sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE) and Precision-Recall Curves (PRC) were reported. Message tag detection, which featured different hospital wards and identified staff names mentioned in the study patients' messages, was implemented by the lexicon-based method. RESULTS: The best classifier was Multinomial Naïve Bayes in combination with MF + TFIDF feature vector and SelectFromModel (SFM) feature selection (ACC = 0.89 ± 0.03, AUC = 0.87 ± 0.03, F1 = 0.92 ± 0.03, SEN = 0.93 ± 0.04, and SPE = 0.82 ± 0.02, PRC-AUC = 0.97). Two methods of assessment by the evaluator and artificial intelligence as well as survey systems were compared. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that the lexicon-based method, in combination with machine learning classifiers, could extract sentiments in patients' comments and classify them into positive and negative categories. We also developed an online survey system to analyze patients' satisfaction in different wards and to remove conventional assessments by the evaluator.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".