Using E-Reputation for Sentiment Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 32-47
Author(s):  
Dhai Eddine Salhi ◽  
Abelkamel Tari ◽  
Mohand Tahar Kechadi
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Social Networks ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Sentiment Analysis ◽  
Execution Time ◽  
Supervised Classification ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Mobile Operator ◽  
Strong Point

In a competitive world, companies are looking to gain a positive reputation through these clients. Electronic reputation is part of this reputation mainly in social networks, where everyone is free to express their opinion. Sentiment analysis of the data collected in these networks is very necessary to identify and know the reputation of a companies. This paper focused on one type of data, Twits on Twitter, where the authors analyzed them for the company Djezzy (mobile operator in Algeria), to know their satisfaction. The study is divided into two parts: The first part was the pre-processing phase, where this research filtered the Twits (eliminate useless words, use the tokenization) to keep the necessary information for a better accuracy. The second part was the application of machine learning algorithms (SVM and logistic regression) for a supervised classification since the results are binary. The strong point of this study was the possibility to run the chosen algorithms on a cloud in order to save execution time; the solution also supports the three languages: Arabic, English, and French.

scholarly journals Adversarial Machine Learning on Social Network: A Survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sensen Guo ◽  
Xiaoyu Li ◽  
Zhiying Mu
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Social Networks ◽  
Social Network ◽  
Sentiment Analysis ◽  
Recommendation System ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Research Progress ◽  
Future Research

In recent years, machine learning technology has made great improvements in social networks applications such as social network recommendation systems, sentiment analysis, and text generation. However, it cannot be ignored that machine learning algorithms are vulnerable to adversarial examples, that is, adding perturbations that are imperceptible to the human eye to the original data can cause machine learning algorithms to make wrong outputs with high probability. This also restricts the widespread use of machine learning algorithms in real life. In this paper, we focus on adversarial machine learning algorithms on social networks in recent years from three aspects: sentiment analysis, recommendation system, and spam detection, We review some typical applications of machine learning algorithms and adversarial example generation and defense algorithms for machine learning algorithms in the above three aspects in recent years. besides, we also analyze the current research progress and prospects for the directions of future research.

scholarly journals Predicting hospitalization following psychiatric crisis care using machine learning

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthijs Blankers ◽  
Louk F. M. van der Post ◽  
Jack J. M. Dekker
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Nearest Neighbors ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Gradient Boosting ◽  
Ensemble Model ◽  
K Nearest Neighbors ◽  
Crisis Care

Abstract Background Accurate prediction models for whether patients on the verge of a psychiatric criseis need hospitalization are lacking and machine learning methods may help improve the accuracy of psychiatric hospitalization prediction models. In this paper we evaluate the accuracy of ten machine learning algorithms, including the generalized linear model (GLM/logistic regression) to predict psychiatric hospitalization in the first 12 months after a psychiatric crisis care contact. We also evaluate an ensemble model to optimize the accuracy and we explore individual predictors of hospitalization. Methods Data from 2084 patients included in the longitudinal Amsterdam Study of Acute Psychiatry with at least one reported psychiatric crisis care contact were included. Target variable for the prediction models was whether the patient was hospitalized in the 12 months following inclusion. The predictive power of 39 variables related to patients’ socio-demographics, clinical characteristics and previous mental health care contacts was evaluated. The accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the machine learning algorithms were compared and we also estimated the relative importance of each predictor variable. The best and least performing algorithms were compared with GLM/logistic regression using net reclassification improvement analysis and the five best performing algorithms were combined in an ensemble model using stacking. Results All models performed above chance level. We found Gradient Boosting to be the best performing algorithm (AUC = 0.774) and K-Nearest Neighbors to be the least performing (AUC = 0.702). The performance of GLM/logistic regression (AUC = 0.76) was slightly above average among the tested algorithms. In a Net Reclassification Improvement analysis Gradient Boosting outperformed GLM/logistic regression by 2.9% and K-Nearest Neighbors by 11.3%. GLM/logistic regression outperformed K-Nearest Neighbors by 8.7%. Nine of the top-10 most important predictor variables were related to previous mental health care use. Conclusions Gradient Boosting led to the highest predictive accuracy and AUC while GLM/logistic regression performed average among the tested algorithms. Although statistically significant, the magnitude of the differences between the machine learning algorithms was in most cases modest. The results show that a predictive accuracy similar to the best performing model can be achieved when combining multiple algorithms in an ensemble model.

scholarly journals Predicting Hospitalization following Psychiatric Crisis Care using Machine Learning

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthijs Blankers ◽  
Louk F. M. van der Post ◽  
Jack J. M. Dekker
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Nearest Neighbors ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Predictor Variables ◽  
Gradient Boosting ◽  
K Nearest Neighbors ◽  
Psychiatric Crisis ◽  
Crisis Care

Abstract Background: It is difficult to accurately predict whether a patient on the verge of a potential psychiatric crisis will need to be hospitalized. Machine learning may be helpful to improve the accuracy of psychiatric hospitalization prediction models. In this paper we evaluate and compare the accuracy of ten machine learning algorithms including the commonly used generalized linear model (GLM/logistic regression) to predict psychiatric hospitalization in the first 12 months after a psychiatric crisis care contact, and explore the most important predictor variables of hospitalization. Methods: Data from 2,084 patients with at least one reported psychiatric crisis care contact included in the longitudinal Amsterdam Study of Acute Psychiatry were used. The accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the machine learning algorithms were compared. We also estimated the relative importance of each predictor variable. The best and least performing algorithms were compared with GLM/logistic regression using net reclassification improvement analysis. Target variable for the prediction models was whether or not the patient was hospitalized in the 12 months following inclusion in the study. The 39 predictor variables were related to patients’ socio-demographics, clinical characteristics and previous mental health care contacts. Results: We found Gradient Boosting to perform the best (AUC=0.774) and K-Nearest Neighbors performing the least (AUC=0.702). The performance of GLM/logistic regression (AUC=0.76) was above average among the tested algorithms. Gradient Boosting outperformed GLM/logistic regression and K-Nearest Neighbors, and GLM outperformed K-Nearest Neighbors in a Net Reclassification Improvement analysis, although the differences between Gradient Boosting and GLM/logistic regression were small. Nine of the top-10 most important predictor variables were related to previous mental health care use. Conclusions: Gradient Boosting led to the highest predictive accuracy and AUC while GLM/logistic regression performed average among the tested algorithms. Although statistically significant, the magnitude of the differences between the machine learning algorithms was modest. Future studies may consider to combine multiple algorithms in an ensemble model for optimal performance and to mitigate the risk of choosing suboptimal performing algorithms.

scholarly journals Predicting the Risk of Hypertension Based on Several Easy-to-Collect Risk Factors: A Machine Learning Method

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huanhuan Zhao ◽  
Xiaoyu Zhang ◽  
Yang Xu ◽  
Lisheng Gao ◽  
Zuchang Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Risk Prediction ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Learning Algorithms ◽  
Large Population ◽  
Machine Learning Algorithms ◽  
Hypertension Risk ◽  
Model Training

Hypertension is a widespread chronic disease. Risk prediction of hypertension is an intervention that contributes to the early prevention and management of hypertension. The implementation of such intervention requires an effective and easy-to-implement hypertension risk prediction model. This study evaluated and compared the performance of four machine learning algorithms on predicting the risk of hypertension based on easy-to-collect risk factors. A dataset of 29,700 samples collected through a physical examination was used for model training and testing. Firstly, we identified easy-to-collect risk factors of hypertension, through univariate logistic regression analysis. Then, based on the selected features, 10-fold cross-validation was utilized to optimize four models, random forest (RF), CatBoost, MLP neural network and logistic regression (LR), to find the best hyper-parameters on the training set. Finally, the performance of models was evaluated by AUC, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity on the test set. The experimental results showed that the RF model outperformed the other three models, and achieved an AUC of 0.92, an accuracy of 0.82, a sensitivity of 0.83 and a specificity of 0.81. In addition, Body Mass Index (BMI), age, family history and waist circumference (WC) are the four primary risk factors of hypertension. These findings reveal that it is feasible to use machine learning algorithms, especially RF, to predict hypertension risk without clinical or genetic data. The technique can provide a non-invasive and economical way for the prevention and management of hypertension in a large population.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document