Evidence Hub

Validating GAN-BioBERT: A Methodology For Assessing Reporting Trends In Clinical Trials

Joshua J Myszewski, Emily Klossowski, Patrick Meyer, Kristin Bevil, Lisa Klesius, Kristopher M Schroeder

arXiv, 2021

Abstract

In the past decade, there has been much discussion about the issue of biased reporting in clinical research. Despite this attention, there have been limited tools developed for the systematic assessment of qualitative statements made in clinical research, with most studies assessing qualitative statements relying on the use of manual expert raters, which limits their size. Also, previous attempts to develop larger scale tools, such as those using natural language processing, were limited by both their accuracy and the number of categories used for the classification of their findings. With these limitations in mind, this study's goal was to develop a classification algorithm that was both suitably accurate and finely grained to be applied on a large scale for assessing the qualitative sentiment expressed in clinical trial abstracts. Additionally, this study seeks to compare the performance of the proposed algorithm, GAN-BioBERT, to previous studies as well as to expert manual rating of clinical trial abstracts. This study develops a three-class sentiment classification algorithm for clinical trial abstracts using a semi-supervised natural language process model based on the Bidirectional Encoder Representation from Transformers (BERT) model, from a series of clinical trial abstracts annotated by a group of experts in academic medicine. Results: The use of this algorithm was found to have a classification accuracy of 91.3%, with a macro F1-Score of 0.92, which is a…

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free