Exploring the Use of Natural Language Processing to Understand Emotions of Trainees and Faculty Regarding Entrustable Professional Activity Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In medical education, artificial intelligence techniques such as natural language processing (NLP) are starting to be used to capture and analyze emotions through written text. Objective To explore the application of NLP techniques to understand resident and faculty emotions related to entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessments. Methods Open-ended text data from a survey on emotions toward EPA assessments were analyzed. Respondents were residents and faculty from pediatrics (Peds), general surgery (GS), and emergency medicine (EM), recruited for a larger emotions study in 2023. Participants wrote about their emotions related to receiving/completing EPA assessments. We analyzed the frequency of words rated as positive via a validated sentiment lexicon used in NLP studies. Specifically, we were interested if the count of positive words varied as a function of group membership (faculty, resident), specialty (Peds, GS, EM), gender (man, woman, nonbinary), or visible minority status (yes, no, omit). Results A total of 66 text responses (30 faculty, 36 residents) contained text data useful for sentiment analysis. We analyzed the difference in the count of words categorized as positive across group, specialty, gender, and being a visible minority. Specialty was the only category revealing significant differences via a bootstrapped Poisson regression model with GS responses containing fewer positive words than EM responses. Conclusions By analyzing text data to understand emotions of residents and faculty through an NLP approach, we identified differences in EPA assessment-related emotions of residents versus faculty, and differences across specialties.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".