MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416337373 · doi:10.1101/2025.11.13.25340187

FairCareNLP: An AI-Driven Patient Review Analyzer for Healthcare

2025· preprint· en· W4416337373 on OpenAlexafffund
Sayyed Mohammad Pourya Momtaz Esfahani, Davey Seeman, Christoffer Dharma, Mohammad Noaeen, Shion Guha, Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstitutePublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsDebiasingOddsAdversarial systemHealth careKey (lock)Hyperparameter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate an automatic patient review analyzer that applies advanced Natural Language Processing (NLP) and machine learning methods to improve the efficiency, fairness, and accuracy of healthcare feedback analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a multi-component pipeline incorporating sentiment analysis, key theme extraction, clinical Named Entity Recognition (NER), and fairness modules. Bias mitigation was addressed through the integration of three complementary approaches: adversarial debiasing, Hard Debiasing, and Iterative Null-space Projection (INLP). Multiple BERT-based models (DistilBERT, BioBERT, RoBERTa-base, BERT-base-uncased) were trained and evaluated under varying hyperparameters and fairness/adversarial loss configurations. Model performance was assessed using accuracy, F1, recall, precision, AUC, Equalized Odds (EOD), and Word Embedding Association Test (WEAT) metrics. RESULTS: Adversarial loss ([Formula: see text]) consistently decreased model performance across accuracy, F1, precision, and recall. In contrast, Hard Debiasing and INLP improved WEAT scores while preserving or enhancing other metrics, with INLP yielding the best overall performance. Specifically, INLP with fairness loss improved EOD by 14%, gender WEAT scores by 15%, and achieved slight gains for ethnicity and socioeconomic WEAT scores. The best model achieved accuracy of 0.856, F1 score of 0.812, recall of 0.798, and precision of 0.829. The key theme analysis module identified 82% of expert-labeled themes, though 21% of patient comments lacked expert labels for valence or related attributes. DISCUSSION: Our results demonstrate the trade-offs between fairness and performance in bias mitigation strategies. While adversarial debiasing reduced predictive accuracy, INLP and Hard Debiasing improved fairness without significant degradation in task performance. Gender bias was easier to mitigate than multi-class sensitive attributes such as ethnicity and income. This difference indicates a need for fairness techniques designed for multi-class sensitive attributes. CONCLUSION: This work presents an NLP pipeline for patient feedback analysis with multiple debiasing strategies. This pipeline improves the fairness and accuracy of insights from unstructured patient reviews and supports inclusive patient-centered care.

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)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.300 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education→French-language works237,207→