Cited by 36Computational and Text Analysis MethodsSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningMental Health via Writing

Natural language processing for automated classification of qualitative data from interviews of patients with cancer

Open access
Fang, Chao, Markuzon, Natasha, Patel, Nikunj, Rueda, Juan-David·2022·Value in Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore the use of novel natural language processing (NLP) methods for classifying unstructured, qualitative textual data from interviews of patients with cancer to identify patient-reported symptoms and impacts on quality of life. METHODS: We tested the ability of 4 NLP models to accurately classify text from interview transcripts as "symptom," "quality of life impact," and "other." Interview data sets from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (n = 25), biliary tract cancer (BTC) (n = 23), and gastric cancer (n = 24) were used. Models were cross-validated with transcript subsets designated for training, validation, and testing. Multiclass classification performance of the 4 models was evaluated at paragraph and sentence level using the HCC testing data set and analyzed by the one-versus-rest technique quantified by the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC) score. RESULTS: NLP models accurately classified multiclass text from patient interviews. The Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers model generally outperformed all other models at paragraph and sentence level. The highest predictive performance of the Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers model was observed using the HCC data set to train and BTC data set to test (mean ROC AUC, 0.940 [SD 0.028]), with similarly high predictive performance using balanced and imbalanced training data sets from BTC and gastric cancer populations. CONCLUSIONS: NLP models were accurate in predicting multiclass classification of text from interviews of patients with cancer, with most surpassing 0.9 ROC AUC at paragraph level. NLP may be a useful tool for scaling up processing of patient interviews in clinical studies and, thus, could serve to facilitate patient input into drug development and improving patient care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jval.2022.06.004

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fang, C., Markuzon, N., Patel, N., & Rueda, J.-D.
Affiliations
AstraZeneca (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Markuzon, Natasha
Venue
Value in Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-12
Volume
25
Issue
12
Pages
1995-2002
ISSN
1098-3015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285098504
Cited by
36
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6
FWCI
17.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Value in Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
AstraZeneca (163:461-464)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
natural language processing, text classification, patient-reported symptoms, quality of life, cancer patients, patient interviews, hepatocellular carcinoma, biliary tract cancer, gastric cancer, BERT, multi-class classification, drug development
MeSH terms
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Humans, Liver Neoplasms, Natural Language Processing, Quality of Life, Stomach Neoplasms

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review