↓ Skip to main content

Mining Health Social Media with Sentiment Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Systems, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Mining Health Social Media with Sentiment Analysis
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems, September 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10916-016-0604-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fu-Chen Yang, Anthony J.T. Lee, Sz-Chen Kuo

Abstract

With the rapid development of the Internet, more and more users utilize health communities (known as forums) to find health-related information, share their medical stories and experiences, or interact with other people in the communities. In this paper, we propose a framework to analyze the user-generated contents in a health community. The proposed framework contains three phases. First, we extract medical terms, including conditions, symptoms, treatments, effectiveness and side effects to form a virtual document for each question in the community. Next, we modify Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) by adding a weighted scheme, called conLDA, to cluster virtual documents with similar medical term distributions into a conditional topic (C-topic). Finally, we analyze the clustered C-topics by sentiment polarities, and physiological and psychological sentiment. The experiment results show that conLDA outperforms the original LDA, and can cluster relevant medical terms and relevant questions together. The C-topics clustered by conLDA are more thematic than those clustered by the original LDA. The results of sentiment analysis may provide a quick reference and valuable insights for patients, caregivers and doctors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 5%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 34 30%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 39 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,861,841
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#635
of 1,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,016
of 321,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#21
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,154 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.