Paper detail

Automatically Assessing Quality of Online Health Articles

The information ecosystem today is overwhelmed by an unprecedented quantity of data on versatile topics are with varied quality. However, the quality of information disseminated in the field of medicine has been questioned as the negative health consequences of health misinformation can be life-threatening. There is currently no generic automated tool for evaluating the quality of online health information spanned over a broad range. To address this gap, in this paper, we applied a data mining approach to automatically assess the quality of online health articles based on 10 quality criteria. We have prepared a labeled dataset with 53012 features and applied different feature selection methods to identify the best feature subset with which our trained classifier achieved an accuracy of 84%-90% varied over 10 criteria. Our semantic analysis of features shows the underpinning associations between the selected features & assessment criteria and further rationalize our assessment approach. Our findings will help in identifying high-quality health articles and thus aiding users in shaping their opinion to make the right choice while picking health-related help from online.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.