| Literature DB >> 28316638 |
María Del Pilar Salas-Zárate1, José Medina-Moreira2, Katty Lagos-Ortiz2, Harry Luna-Aveiga2, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez-García3, Rafael Valencia-García1.
Abstract
In recent years, some methods of sentiment analysis have been developed for the health domain; however, the diabetes domain has not been explored yet. In addition, there is a lack of approaches that analyze the positive or negative orientation of each aspect contained in a document (a review, a piece of news, and a tweet, among others). Based on this understanding, we propose an aspect-level sentiment analysis method based on ontologies in the diabetes domain. The sentiment of the aspects is calculated by considering the words around the aspect which are obtained through N-gram methods (N-gram after, N-gram before, and N-gram around). To evaluate the effectiveness of our method, we obtained a corpus from Twitter, which has been manually labelled at aspect level as positive, negative, or neutral. The experimental results show that the best result was obtained through the N-gram around method with a precision of 81.93%, a recall of 81.13%, and an F-measure of 81.24%.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28316638 PMCID: PMC5337803 DOI: 10.1155/2017/5140631
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1System architecture.
Figure 2Tweet about diabetes.
Figure 3Excerpt from DDO ontology.
Aspect identification.
| Precision | Recall |
|
|---|---|---|
| 85.71 | 80.00 | 82.75 |
Aspect-level sentiment analysis results obtained with the three N-gram methods.
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 |
| 63.51 | 73.93 | 77.20 |
|
| 62.00 | 73.33 | 76.33 | |
|
| 62.22 | 73.48 | 76.46 | |
| 3 |
| 69.74 | 78.62 |
|
|
| 69.33 | 78.20 |
| |
|
| 69.42 | 78.31 |
| |
| 4 |
| 67.57 | 76.71 | 78.25 |
|
| 66.93 | 76.20 | 77.40 | |
|
| 67.02 | 76.34 | 77.52 | |
| 5 |
| 67.91 | 74.95 | 79.60 |
|
| 67.27 | 74.40 | 78.73 | |
|
| 67.35 | 74.54 | 78.86 | |
| 6 |
| 65.40 | 75.77 | 78.81 |
|
| 64.53 | 75.20 | 77.93 | |
|
| 64.62 | 75.34 | 78.06 |
Figure 4Aspect-level sentiment analysis with N-gram methods.
Comparison with related work.
| Proposal | Level | Language | Domain |
|
|
| ACC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bobicev & Sokolova [ | Document | English | Health reviews | 52.70 | 54.10 | 51.80 | 79.90 |
| Ali et al. [ | Sentence | English | Hearing loss | 68.80 | 68.60 | 68.50 | — |
| Sharif et al. [ | Document | English | Adverse drug reactions | — | — | — | 78.20 |
| 79.30 | |||||||
| Biyani et al. [ | Document | English | Cancer post | 84.40 | 84.30 | 84.40 | — |
| Na et al. [ | Aspect | English | Drug reviews | 79.00 | 78.00 | 78.00 | 78.00 |
| Smith and Lee [ | Document | English | Clinical reviews | 81.58 | 83.53 | 83.52 | 83.53 |
| Rodrigues et al. [ | Document | Portuguese | Cancer post | 59.36 | 61.52 | 59.08 | 71.00 |
| Korkontzelos et al. [ | Document | English | Adverse drug reactions | 87.19 | 78.93 | 82.86 | — |
| 78.51 | 68.59 | 72.94 | |||||
| Our proposal | Aspect | English | Diabetes | 81.93 | 81.13 | 81.24 | — |