Improving Patient Opinion Mining through Multi-step Classification

  • Lei Xia
  • Anna Lisa Gentile
  • James Munro
  • José Iria
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5729)


Automatically tracking attitudes, feelings and reactions in on-line forums, blogs and news is a desirable instrument to support statistical analyses by companies, the government, and even individuals. In this paper, we present a novel approach to polarity classification of short text snippets, which takes into account the way data are naturally distributed into several topics in order to obtain better classification models for polarity. Our approach is multi-step, where in the initial step a standard topic classifier is learned from the data and the topic labels, and in the ensuing step several polarity classifiers, one per topic, are learned from the data and the polarity labels. We empirically show that our approach improves classification accuracy over a real-world dataset by over 10%, when compared against a standard single-step approach using the same feature sets. The approach is applicable whenever training material is available for building both topic and polarity learning models.


National Health Service Sentiment Analysis Topic Label Patient Opinion Standard Topic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gindl, S., Liegl, J.: Evaluation of different sentiment detection methods for polarity classification on web-based reviews. In: Proceedings of the18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2008), ECAI Workshop on Computational Aspects of Affectual and Emotional Interaction, Patras, Greece (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abbasi, A., Chen, H., Salem, A.: Sentiment analysis in multiple languages: Feature selection for opinion classification in web forums. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 26(3) (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boiy, E., Hens, P., Deschacht, K., Moens, M.: Automatic sentiment analysis in on-line text. In: Chan, L., Martens, B. (eds.) ELPUB, pp. 349–360 (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gamon, M.: Sentiment classification on customer feedback data: noisy data, large feature vectors, and the role of linguistic analysis. In: COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA, p. 841. Association for Computational Linguistics (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Niu, Y., Zhu, X., Li, J., Hirst, G.: Analysis of polarity information in medical text. In: AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc., pp. 570–574 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pang, B., Lee, L., Vaithyanathan, S.: Thumbs up? Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 79–86 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hatzivassiloglou, V., McKeown, K.: Predicting the semantic orientation of adjectives. In: Proceedings of the eighth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA, pp. 174–181. Association for Computational Linguistics (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koller, D., Sahami, M.: Hierarchically classifying documents using very few words. In: Fisher, D. (ed.) ICML, pp. 170–178. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dumais, S., Chen, H.: Hierarchical classification of web content. In: SIGIR, pp. 256–263 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pang, B., Lee, L.: A sentimental education: Sentiment analysis using subjectivity summarization based on minimum cuts. In: Proceedings of the ACL, pp. 271–278 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Niu, Y., Zhu, X., Hirst, G.: Using outcome polarity in sentence extraction for medical question-answering. In: AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc., pp. 599–603 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Esuli, A., Sebastiani, F.: Sentiwordnet: A publicly available lexical resource for opinion mining. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006), pp. 417–422 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Efron, M.: Cultural orientation: Classifying subjective documents by cocitation analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2004 AAAI Fall Symposium on Style and Meaning in Language, Art, Music, and Design, pp. 41–48 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Agrawal, R., Rajagopalan, S., Srikant, R., Xu, Y.: Mining newsgroups using networks arising from social behavior. In: WWW 2003: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 529–535. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu, H., V.H.: Towards answering opinion questions: separating facts from opinions and identifying the polarity of opinion sentences. In: Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Empirical methods in natural language processing, Morristown, NJ, USA, pp. 129–136. Association for Computational Linguistics (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mccallum, A., Nigam, K.: A comparison of event models for naive bayes text classification. In: AAAI Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lei Xia
    • 1
  • Anna Lisa Gentile
    • 2
  • James Munro
    • 3
  • José Iria
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of SheffieldUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BariItaly
  3. 3.Patient OpinionUK

Personalised recommendations