Cited by 11Sentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningComputational and Text Analysis MethodsOnline Learning and Analytics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating the Applicability of Existing Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis Techniques on Family Medicine Resident Feedback Field Notes: Retrospective Cohort Study

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Field notes, a form for resident-preceptor clinical encounter feedback, are widely adopted across Canadian medical residency training programs for documenting residents' performance. This process generates a sizeable cumulative collection of feedback text, which is difficult for medical education faculty to navigate. As sentiment analysis is a subfield of text mining that can efficiently synthesize the polarity of a text collection, sentiment analysis may serve as an innovative solution. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the feasibility and utility of sentiment analysis using 3 popular sentiment lexicons on medical resident field notes. METHODS: We used a retrospective cohort design, curating text data from University of Toronto medical resident field notes gathered over 2 years (from July 2019 to June 2021). Lexicon-based sentiment analysis was applied using 3 standardized dictionaries, modified by removing ambiguous words as determined by a medical subject matter expert. Our modified lexicons assigned words from the text data a sentiment score, and we aggregated the word-level scores to a document-level polarity score. Agreement between dictionaries was assessed, and the document-level polarity was correlated with the overall preceptor rating of the clinical encounter under assessment. RESULTS: Across the 3 original dictionaries, approximately a third of labeled words in our field note corpus were deemed ambiguous and were removed to create modified dictionaries. Across the 3 modified dictionaries, the mean sentiment for the "Strengths" section of the field notes was mildly positive, while it was slightly less positive in the "Areas of Improvement" section. We observed reasonable agreement between dictionaries for sentiment scores in both field note sections. Overall, the proportion of positively labeled documents increased with the overall preceptor rating, and the proportion of negatively labeled documents decreased with the overall preceptor rating. CONCLUSIONS: Applying sentiment analysis to systematically analyze field notes is feasible. However, the applicability of existing lexicons is limited in the medical setting, even after the removal of ambiguous words. Limited applicability warrants the need to generate new dictionaries specific to the medical education context. Additionally, aspect-based sentiment analysis may be applied to navigate the more nuanced structure of texts when identifying sentiments. Ultimately, this will allow for more robust inferences to discover opportunities for improving resident teaching curriculums.

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 · 10.2196/41953

Cites

16 of 16 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

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Saucier, D, 2012, Can Fam Physician, 58, 707
  2. Laughlin, T, 2012, Can Fam Physician, 58, e352
  3. Zhang, R, 2012, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, 2012, 1459
  4. Lara, Rebecca, 2016, Support Line, 38, 3

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lu, K. J. Q., Meaney, C., Guo, E., & Leung, F.-H.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Lu, Kevin Jia Qi
Venue
JMIR Medical Education
Published
2023-07-27
Volume
9
Pages
e41953
ISSN
2369-3762 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4378469246
Cited by
11
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4
FWCI
1.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
Keywords
sentiment analysis, lexicon-based sentiment analysis, family medicine residency, medical education, ambiguous words, aspect-based sentiment analysis, text mining

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