91,098 research outputs found

    AutoDiscern: Rating the Quality of Online Health Information with Hierarchical Encoder Attention-based Neural Networks

    Get PDF
    Patients increasingly turn to search engines and online content before, or in place of, talking with a health professional. Low quality health information, which is common on the internet, presents risks to the patient in the form of misinformation and a possibly poorer relationship with their physician. To address this, the DISCERN criteria (developed at University of Oxford) are used to evaluate the quality of online health information. However, patients are unlikely to take the time to apply these criteria to the health websites they visit. We built an automated implementation of the DISCERN instrument (Brief version) using machine learning models. We compared the performance of a traditional model (Random Forest) with that of a hierarchical encoder attention-based neural network (HEA) model using two language embeddings, BERT and BioBERT. The HEA BERT and BioBERT models achieved average F1-macro scores across all criteria of 0.75 and 0.74, respectively, outperforming the Random Forest model (average F1-macro = 0.69). Overall, the neural network based models achieved 81% and 86% average accuracy at 100% and 80% coverage, respectively, compared to 94% manual rating accuracy. The attention mechanism implemented in the HEA architectures not only provided 'model explainability' by identifying reasonable supporting sentences for the documents fulfilling the Brief DISCERN criteria, but also boosted F1 performance by 0.05 compared to the same architecture without an attention mechanism. Our research suggests that it is feasible to automate online health information quality assessment, which is an important step towards empowering patients to become informed partners in the healthcare process

    Computer-assisted versus oral-and-written dietary history taking for diabetes mellitus

    Get PDF
    Background: Diabetes is a chronic illness characterised by insulin resistance or deficiency, resulting in elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. Diet and adherence to dietary advice is associated with lower HbA1c levels and control of disease. Dietary history may be an effective clinical tool for diabetes management and has traditionally been taken by oral-and-written methods, although it can also be collected using computer-assisted history taking systems (CAHTS). Although CAHTS were first described in the 1960s, there remains uncertainty about the impact of these methods on dietary history collection, clinical care and patient outcomes such as quality of life. Objectives: To assess the effects of computer-assisted versus oral-and-written dietary history taking on patient outcomes for diabetes mellitus. Search methods: We searched The Cochrane Library (issue 6, 2011), MEDLINE (January 1985 to June 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2011) and CINAHL (January 1981 to June 2011). Reference lists of obtained articles were also pursued further and no limits were imposed on languages and publication status. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials of computer-assisted versus oral-and-written history taking in patients with diabetes mellitus. Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently scanned the title and abstract of retrieved articles. Potentially relevant articles were investigated as full text. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were abstracted for relevant population and intervention characteristics with any disagreements resolved by discussion, or by a third party. Risk of bias was similarly assessed independently. Main results: Of the 2991 studies retrieved, only one study with 38 study participants compared the two methods of history taking over a total of eight weeks. The authors found that as patients became increasingly familiar with using CAHTS, the correlation between patients' food records and computer assessments improved. Reported fat intake decreased in the control group and increased when queried by the computer. The effect of the intervention on the management of diabetes mellitus and blood glucose levels was not reported. Risk of bias was considered moderate for this study. Authors' conclusions: Based on one small study judged to be of moderate risk of bias, we tentatively conclude that CAHTS may be well received by study participants and potentially offer time saving in practice. However, more robust studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these. We cannot draw on any conclusions in relation to any other clinical outcomes at this stage

    Chi-square-based scoring function for categorization of MEDLINE citations

    Full text link
    Objectives: Text categorization has been used in biomedical informatics for identifying documents containing relevant topics of interest. We developed a simple method that uses a chi-square-based scoring function to determine the likelihood of MEDLINE citations containing genetic relevant topic. Methods: Our procedure requires construction of a genetic and a nongenetic domain document corpus. We used MeSH descriptors assigned to MEDLINE citations for this categorization task. We compared frequencies of MeSH descriptors between two corpora applying chi-square test. A MeSH descriptor was considered to be a positive indicator if its relative observed frequency in the genetic domain corpus was greater than its relative observed frequency in the nongenetic domain corpus. The output of the proposed method is a list of scores for all the citations, with the highest score given to those citations containing MeSH descriptors typical for the genetic domain. Results: Validation was done on a set of 734 manually annotated MEDLINE citations. It achieved predictive accuracy of 0.87 with 0.69 recall and 0.64 precision. We evaluated the method by comparing it to three machine learning algorithms (support vector machines, decision trees, na\"ive Bayes). Although the differences were not statistically significantly different, results showed that our chi-square scoring performs as good as compared machine learning algorithms. Conclusions: We suggest that the chi-square scoring is an effective solution to help categorize MEDLINE citations. The algorithm is implemented in the BITOLA literature-based discovery support system as a preprocessor for gene symbol disambiguation process.Comment: 34 pages, 2 figure

    Do automated digital health behaviour change interventions have a positive effect on self-efficacy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    © 2019 Taylor & Francis. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Health Psychology Review on 20/01/2020, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2019.1705873.Self-efficacy is an important determinant of health behaviour. Digital interventions are a potentially acceptable and cost-effective way of delivering programmes of health behaviour change at scale. Whether behaviour change interventions work to increase self-efficacy in this context is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to identify whether automated digital interventions are associated with positive changes in self-efficacy amongst non-clinical populations for five major health behaviours, and which BCTs are associated with that change. A systematic literature search identified 20 studies (n=5624) that assessed changes in self-efficacy and were included in a random effects meta-analysis. Interventions targeted: healthy eating (k=4), physical activity (k=9), sexual behaviour (k=3), and smoking (k=4). No interventions targeting alcohol use were identified. Overall, interventions had a small, positive effect on self-efficacy (푔 = 0.190, CI [0.078; 0.303]). The effect of interventions on self-efficacy did not differ as a function of health behaviour type (Qbetween = 7.3704 p = 0.061, df = 3). Inclusion of the BCT ‘information about social and environmental consequences’ had a small, negative effect on self-efficacy (Δ푔= - 0.297, Q=7.072, p=0.008). Whilst this review indicates that digital interventions can be used to change self-efficacy, which techniques work best in this context is not clear.Peer reviewedFinal Accepted Versio
    • …
    corecore