| Literature DB >> 35726325 |
Yiling Ding1,2, Tianhua Wang1.
Abstract
Most international academic papers are written in English, and the use of tenses in English academic papers often follows some conventional rules. Automatically extracting and analyzing English tenses in scientific papers have begun to attract researchers' attention for the global environment. In the analysis of the English tense of scientific papers, consider that the neural network model that combines attention mechanism and sequential input network such as Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network has a long training time, low extraction accuracy, and cannot parallelize text input. We propose an environmental affection-driven English tense analysis model, which includes an attention mechanism and LSTM model and conducts a temporal analysis of English texts based on an affective computing model. In this paper, our proposed method is verified based on the self-built healthcare exercise-based corpus over public English environment. By comparison, the experimental results show that the method proposed in this paper has better performance than ordinary Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and LSTM based on attention mechanism.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35726325 PMCID: PMC9206547 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9497554
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Figure 1The overall framework of Our Method.
Figure 2The structure of the healthcare exercise based corpus.
The precision comparison of four algorithms.
| COVID-19 | Depression | Mental health | Dementia | Epidemiology | Metabolic syndrome | Diabetes | Oral health | Obesity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our method | 88.49 | 89.29 | 90.60 | 90.18 | 91.84 | 92.92 | 93.72 | 92.14 | 90.80 |
| AT-KSTN | 85.26 | 84.79 | 85.12 | 86.09 | 84.28 | 85.48 | 84.54 | 83.78 | 86.36 |
| CNN | 82.49 | 83.46 | 82.98 | 81.87 | 80.13 | 79.19 | 77.68 | 76.68 | 77.19 |
| SVM | 77.99 | 76.94 | 77.04 | 79.39 | 81.92 | 83.29 | 78.89 | 78.76 | 78.40 |
The recall comparison of four algorithms.
| COVID-19 | Depression | Mental health | Dementia | Epidemiology | Metabolic syndrome | Diabetes | Oral health | Obesity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our method | 86.78 | 89.05 | 90.33 | 90.46 | 90.17 | 89.57 | 83.44 | 84.92 | 85.89 |
| AT-KSTN | 83.23 | 80.85 | 79.83 | 79.23 | 80.98 | 78.24 | 79.52 | 77.04 | 79.68 |
| CNN | 75.29 | 74.43 | 75.08 | 74.32 | 75.03 | 77.51 | 78.42 | 79.02 | 80.36 |
| SVM | 77.54 | 75.58 | 74.92 | 76.57 | 75.97 | 74.27 | 76.49 | 77.98 | 79.68 |
The F1-score comparison of four algorithms.
| COVID-19 | Depression | Mental health | Dementia | Epidemiology | Metabolic syndrome | Diabetes | Oral health | Obesity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Our method | 87.63 | 89.17 | 90.46 | 90.32 | 91.00 | 91.22 | 88.28 | 88.39 | 88.28 |
| AT-KSTN | 84.23 | 82.77 | 82.39 | 82.52 | 82.60 | 81.70 | 81.95 | 80.27 | 82.88 |
| CNN | 78.73 | 78.69 | 78.84 | 77.92 | 77.50 | 78.34 | 78.05 | 77.84 | 78.74 |
| SVM | 77.76 | 76.25 | 75.97 | 77.96 | 78.83 | 78.52 | 77.67 | 78.37 | 79.03 |
Figure 3The training time of our method on each category of the corpus.
Figure 4The training time comparison of four algorithms.