Estimating Patient Satisfaction Through a Language Processing Model: Model Development and Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Measuring patient satisfaction is a crucial aspect of medical care. Advanced natural language processing (NLP) techniques enable the extraction and analysis of high-level insights from textual data; nonetheless, data obtained from patients are often limited. Objective This study aimed to create a model that quantifies patient satisfaction based on diverse patient-written textual data. Methods We constructed a neural network–based NLP model for this cross-sectional study using the textual content from disease blogs written in Japanese on the Internet between 1994 and 2020. We extracted approximately 20 million sentences from 56,357 patient-authored disease blogs and constructed a model to predict the patient satisfaction index (PSI) using a regression approach. After evaluating the model’s effectiveness, PSI was predicted before and after cancer notification to examine the emotional impact of cancer diagnoses on 48 patients with breast cancer. Results We assessed the correlation between the predicted and actual PSI values, labeled by humans, using the test set of 169 sentences. The model successfully quantified patient satisfaction by detecting nuances in sentences with excellent effectiveness (Spearman correlation coefficient [ρ]=0.832; root-mean-squared error [RMSE]=0.166; P<.001). Furthermore, the PSI was significantly lower in the cancer notification period than in the preceding control period (−0.057 and −0.012, respectively; 2-tailed t47=5.392, P<.001), indicating that the model quantifies the psychological and emotional changes associated with the cancer diagnosis notification. Conclusions Our model demonstrates the ability to quantify patient dissatisfaction and identify significant emotional changes during the disease course. This approach may also help detect issues in routine medical practice.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".