骨关节炎疼痛药物治疗中误解的计算语言学和情感分析

I. Yu. Torshin, A. N. Gromov, O. A. Gromova
{"title":"骨关节炎疼痛药物治疗中误解的计算语言学和情感分析","authors":"I. Yu. Torshin, A. N. Gromov, O. A. Gromova","doi":"10.17749/2077-8333/epi.par.con.2023.164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the leading causes of chronic pain in adults, wherein half of the cases is coupled to a neuropathic component. Agents with chondroprotective properties such as chondroitin sulfate (CS) and glucosamine sulfate (GS) have been successfully used in the treatment of OA-related pain. CS/GS exhibit diverse analgesic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and chondroregenerative effects that contribute to the restoration of cartilage tissue.Objective: to analyze the misconceptions associated with the medical terminology used for CS/HS in the treatment of OA-related pain, approaches to standardize the quantitative and qualitative composition of CS/HS extracts.Material and methods. Expert analysis was performed along with computational linguistics methods (sentiment analysis, i.e. analysis of text-related emotional modality). Sentiment analysis was carried out using the topological theory of data analysis and algorithms, with 90% accuracy allowing to classify texts into 16 classes of sentiment (manipulative constructs, research without positive results, propaganda, data falsification, etc.). This technique was tested earlier on 20 million publications retrieved from PubMed/MEDLINE database.Results. In recent years, the use of highly dubious terms such as “symptomatic slow acting drug for osteoarthritis, SYSADOA”, etc., has been extensively promoted at certain international conferences. The introduction of such barely scientific terms is not justified neither by the results of basic research nor clinical practice. Using the methods of computational linguistics and data mining of the biomedical literature, we have shown that some misconceptions actively promoted at the so-called \"grand conferences\" and \"international congresses\" virtually lack in real-world published scientific literature. Such misconceptions, logically contradicting the entire system of other medical terms, confuse scientific terminology. Moreover, texts promoting this misconceptions are easily recognized as manipulative not only by experts in the analysis of medical literature, but also by artificial intelligence algorithms.Conclusion. A number of misconceptions associated with inadequate interpretation of data obtained during basic and clinical studies of CS/GS has been explored. Specific examples show how practitioners can distinguish between manipulative propaganda and a balanced presentation of research data.","PeriodicalId":11715,"journal":{"name":"Epilepsia and paroxyzmal conditions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Computational linguistics and sentiment analysis of misconceptions in pharmacotherapy of osteoarthritis pain\",\"authors\":\"I. Yu. Torshin, A. N. Gromov, O. A. Gromova\",\"doi\":\"10.17749/2077-8333/epi.par.con.2023.164\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the leading causes of chronic pain in adults, wherein half of the cases is coupled to a neuropathic component. Agents with chondroprotective properties such as chondroitin sulfate (CS) and glucosamine sulfate (GS) have been successfully used in the treatment of OA-related pain. CS/GS exhibit diverse analgesic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and chondroregenerative effects that contribute to the restoration of cartilage tissue.Objective: to analyze the misconceptions associated with the medical terminology used for CS/HS in the treatment of OA-related pain, approaches to standardize the quantitative and qualitative composition of CS/HS extracts.Material and methods. Expert analysis was performed along with computational linguistics methods (sentiment analysis, i.e. analysis of text-related emotional modality). Sentiment analysis was carried out using the topological theory of data analysis and algorithms, with 90% accuracy allowing to classify texts into 16 classes of sentiment (manipulative constructs, research without positive results, propaganda, data falsification, etc.). This technique was tested earlier on 20 million publications retrieved from PubMed/MEDLINE database.Results. In recent years, the use of highly dubious terms such as “symptomatic slow acting drug for osteoarthritis, SYSADOA”, etc., has been extensively promoted at certain international conferences. The introduction of such barely scientific terms is not justified neither by the results of basic research nor clinical practice. Using the methods of computational linguistics and data mining of the biomedical literature, we have shown that some misconceptions actively promoted at the so-called \\\"grand conferences\\\" and \\\"international congresses\\\" virtually lack in real-world published scientific literature. Such misconceptions, logically contradicting the entire system of other medical terms, confuse scientific terminology. Moreover, texts promoting this misconceptions are easily recognized as manipulative not only by experts in the analysis of medical literature, but also by artificial intelligence algorithms.Conclusion. A number of misconceptions associated with inadequate interpretation of data obtained during basic and clinical studies of CS/GS has been explored. Specific examples show how practitioners can distinguish between manipulative propaganda and a balanced presentation of research data.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11715,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epilepsia and paroxyzmal conditions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epilepsia and paroxyzmal conditions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17749/2077-8333/epi.par.con.2023.164\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epilepsia and paroxyzmal conditions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17749/2077-8333/epi.par.con.2023.164","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景。骨关节炎(OA)是成人慢性疼痛的主要原因之一,其中一半的病例与神经性成分有关。具有软骨保护作用的药物,如硫酸软骨素(CS)和硫酸氨基葡萄糖(GS)已成功用于治疗oa相关疼痛。CS/GS具有多种镇痛、抗炎、抗氧化和软骨再生作用,有助于软骨组织的修复。目的:分析黄芪/黄芪在治疗腰痛相关疼痛的医学术语中存在的误解,探讨规范黄芪/黄芪提取物定量和定性组成的方法。材料和方法。专家分析与计算语言学方法一起进行(情感分析,即与文本相关的情感情态分析)。使用数据分析和算法的拓扑理论进行情感分析,准确率为90%,可以将文本分为16类情感(操纵性结构,无积极结果的研究,宣传,数据伪造等)。该技术早前在PubMed/MEDLINE数据库检索的2000万篇出版物上进行了测试。近年来,在一些国际会议上,“症状性骨关节炎缓效药物、SYSADOA”等高度可疑的术语被广泛使用。基础研究和临床实践的结果都不能证明引入这些几乎不科学的术语是合理的。利用计算语言学和生物医学文献数据挖掘的方法,我们发现在所谓的“大型会议”和“国际会议”上积极提倡的一些误解在现实世界发表的科学文献中实际上是缺乏的。这种误解在逻辑上与其他医学术语的整个体系相矛盾,混淆了科学术语。此外,促进这种误解的文本很容易被医学文献分析专家和人工智能算法识别为操纵。在CS/GS的基础和临床研究中获得的数据的解释不充分相关的一些误解已经被探讨。具体的例子表明,从业者如何区分操纵性宣传和研究数据的平衡呈现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Computational linguistics and sentiment analysis of misconceptions in pharmacotherapy of osteoarthritis pain
Background. Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the leading causes of chronic pain in adults, wherein half of the cases is coupled to a neuropathic component. Agents with chondroprotective properties such as chondroitin sulfate (CS) and glucosamine sulfate (GS) have been successfully used in the treatment of OA-related pain. CS/GS exhibit diverse analgesic, anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and chondroregenerative effects that contribute to the restoration of cartilage tissue.Objective: to analyze the misconceptions associated with the medical terminology used for CS/HS in the treatment of OA-related pain, approaches to standardize the quantitative and qualitative composition of CS/HS extracts.Material and methods. Expert analysis was performed along with computational linguistics methods (sentiment analysis, i.e. analysis of text-related emotional modality). Sentiment analysis was carried out using the topological theory of data analysis and algorithms, with 90% accuracy allowing to classify texts into 16 classes of sentiment (manipulative constructs, research without positive results, propaganda, data falsification, etc.). This technique was tested earlier on 20 million publications retrieved from PubMed/MEDLINE database.Results. In recent years, the use of highly dubious terms such as “symptomatic slow acting drug for osteoarthritis, SYSADOA”, etc., has been extensively promoted at certain international conferences. The introduction of such barely scientific terms is not justified neither by the results of basic research nor clinical practice. Using the methods of computational linguistics and data mining of the biomedical literature, we have shown that some misconceptions actively promoted at the so-called "grand conferences" and "international congresses" virtually lack in real-world published scientific literature. Such misconceptions, logically contradicting the entire system of other medical terms, confuse scientific terminology. Moreover, texts promoting this misconceptions are easily recognized as manipulative not only by experts in the analysis of medical literature, but also by artificial intelligence algorithms.Conclusion. A number of misconceptions associated with inadequate interpretation of data obtained during basic and clinical studies of CS/GS has been explored. Specific examples show how practitioners can distinguish between manipulative propaganda and a balanced presentation of research data.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信