Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A performance comparison of supervised machine learning models for Covid-19 tweets sentiment analysis

Open access
Rustam, Furqan, Khalid, Madiha, Aslam, Waqar, Rupapara, Vaibhav, Mehmood, Arif, Choi, Gyu Sang·2021·PLOS ONE

Abstract

The spread of Covid-19 has resulted in worldwide health concerns. Social media is increasingly used to share news and opinions about it. A realistic assessment of the situation is necessary to utilize resources optimally and appropriately. In this research, we perform Covid-19 tweets sentiment analysis using a supervised machine learning approach. Identification of Covid-19 sentiments from tweets would allow informed decisions for better handling the current pandemic situation. The used dataset is extracted from Twitter using IDs as provided by the IEEE data port. Tweets are extracted by an in-house built crawler that uses the Tweepy library. The dataset is cleaned using the preprocessing techniques and sentiments are extracted using the TextBlob library. The contribution of this work is the performance evaluation of various machine learning classifiers using our proposed feature set. This set is formed by concatenating the bag-of-words and the term frequency-inverse document frequency. Tweets are classified as positive, neutral, or negative. Performance of classifiers is evaluated on the accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score. For completeness, further investigation is made on the dataset using the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) architecture of the deep learning model. The results show that Extra Trees Classifiers outperform all other models by achieving a 0.93 accuracy score using our proposed concatenated features set. The LSTM achieves low accuracy as compared to machine learning classifiers. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed feature set, the results are compared with the Vader sentiment analysis technique based on the GloVe feature extraction approach.

Overview

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.0245909

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Rustam, F., Khalid, M., Aslam, W., Rupapara, V., Mehmood, A., & Choi, G. S.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2021-02-25
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
e0245909
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3131504710
Cited by
313
References
55
FWCI
23.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A performance comparison of supervised machine learning models for Covid-19 tweets sentiment analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0245909
The paper
Rustam, F., Khalid, M., Aslam, W., Rupapara, V., Mehmood, A., & Choi, G. S. (2021). A performance comparison of supervised machine learning models for Covid-19 tweets sentiment analysis. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245909

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.