Cited by 87Health Literacy and Information AccessibilitySocial Media in Health EducationSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Machine learning to support social media empowered patients in cancer care and cancer treatment decisions

Open access
De Silva, Daswin, Ranasinghe, Weranja, Bandaragoda, Tharindu, Adikari, Achini, Mills, Nishan, Iddamalgoda, Lahiru, Alahakoon, Damminda, Lawrentschuk, Nathan +4 more·2018·PLOS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A primary variant of social media, online support groups (OSG) extend beyond the standard definition to incorporate a dimension of advice, support and guidance for patients. OSG are complementary, yet significant adjunct to patient journeys. Machine learning and natural language processing techniques can be applied to these large volumes of unstructured text discussions accumulated in OSG for intelligent extraction of patient-reported demographics, behaviours, decisions, treatment, side effects and expressions of emotions. New insights from the fusion and synthesis of such diverse patient-reported information, as expressed throughout the patient journey from diagnosis to treatment and recovery, can contribute towards informed decision-making on personalized healthcare delivery and the development of healthcare policy guidelines. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We have designed and developed an artificial intelligence based analytics framework using machine learning and natural language processing techniques for intelligent analysis and automated aggregation of patient information and interaction trajectories in online support groups. Alongside the social interactions aspect, patient behaviours, decisions, demographics, clinical factors, emotions, as subsequently expressed over time, are extracted and analysed. More specifically, we utilised this platform to investigate the impact of online social influences on the intimate decision scenario of selecting a treatment type, recovery after treatment, side effects and emotions expressed over time, using prostate cancer as a model. Results manifest the three major decision-making behaviours among patients, Paternalistic group, Autonomous group and Shared group. Furthermore, each group demonstrated diverse behaviours in post-decision discussions on clinical outcomes, advice and expressions of emotion during the twelve months following treatment. Over time, the transition of patients from information and emotional support seeking behaviours to providers of information and emotional support to other patients was also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study are a rigorous indication of the expectations of social media empowered patients, their potential for individualised decision-making, clinical and emotional needs. The increasing popularity of OSG further confirms that it is timely for clinicians to consider patient voices as expressed in OSG. We have successfully demonstrated that the proposed platform can be utilised to investigate, analyse and derive actionable insights from patient-reported information on prostate cancer, in support of patient focused healthcare delivery. The platform can be extended and applied just as effectively to any other medical condition.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0205855

Cites

86 of 86 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

2 of the 88 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [45]Lu Y, Zhang P, Liu J, Li J, Deng S. Health-Related Hot Topic Detection in Online Communities Using Text Clustering. PLoS One. 2013; 8: 1– 9. 10.1371/journal.pone.0056221 23457530 PMC3574139 · DOI
  2. [62]Bar-Lev S. “We are here to give you emotional support”: performing emotions in an online HIV/AIDS support group. Qual Health Res. Sage PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA; 2008; 18: 509– 521. 10.1177/1049732307311680 18192435 · DOI
  3. [64]Plutchik R. The Emotions. University Press of America; 1991.
  4. [71]Mikolov T. Distributed Representations ofWords and Phrases and their Compositionality. NIPS Deep Learning Workshop. 2013. pp. 1–31.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
De Silva, D., Ranasinghe, W., Bandaragoda, T., Adikari, A., Mills, N., Iddamalgoda, L., Alahakoon, D., Lawrentschuk, N., Persad, R., Osipov, E., Gray, R., & Bolton, D.
Affiliations
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • Austin Hospital (AU)
  • North Bristol NHS Trust (GB)
  • Luleå University of Technology (SE)
Corresponding author
  • Ranasinghe, Weranja
  • Bandaragoda, Tharindu
  • Adikari, Achini
  • Mills, Nishan
  • Iddamalgoda, Lahiru
  • Alahakoon, Damminda
  • Lawrentschuk, Nathan
  • Persad, Raj
  • Osipov, Evgeny
  • Gray, Richard
  • Bolton, Damien
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2018-10-18
Volume
13
Issue
10
Pages
e0205855
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2895961568
Cited by
86
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3
FWCI
14.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • La Trobe University (cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
online support groups, social media, cancer treatment decision-making, prostate cancer, natural language processing, machine learning, patient behavior, social influence, treatment side effects, emotional expression, patient journey, personalized healthcare
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Decision Making, Emotions, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Participation, Prostatic Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Self-Help Groups, Social Support, Community Networks, Internet, Information Dissemination, Social Media

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