Back

Automatic Breast Cancer Survivor Detection from Social Media for Studying Latent Factors Affecting Treatment Success

Sarker, A.; Al-Garadi, M. A.; Yang, Y.-C.; Lakamana, S.; Lin, J.; Li, S.; Xie, A.; Hogg-Bremer, W.; Torres, M.; Banerjee, I.; Sarker, A.

2020-05-21 health informatics
10.1101/2020.05.17.20104778 medRxiv
Show abstract

Breast cancer patients often discontinue their long-term treatments, such as hormone therapy, increasing the risk of cancer recurrence. These discontinuations may be caused by adverse patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) due to hormonal drug side effects or other factors. PCOs are not detectable through laboratory tests, and are sparsely documented in electronic health records. Thus, there is a need to explore complementary sources of information for PCOs associated with breast cancer treatments. Social media is a promising resource, but extracting true PCOs from it first requires the accurate detection of breast cancer patients. We describe a natural language processing (NLP) architecture for automatically detecting breast cancer patients from Twitter based on their self-reports. The architecture employs breast cancer related keywords to collect streaming data from Twitter, applies NLP patterns to pre-filter noisy posts, and then employs a machine learning classifier trained using manually-annotated data (n=5019) for distinguishing firsthand self-reports of breast cancer from other tweets. A classifier based on bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) showed human-like performance and achieved F1-score of 0.857 (inter-annotator agreement: 0.845; Cohens kappa) for the positive class, considerably outperforming the next best classifier--a deep neural network (F1-score: 0.665). Qualitative analyses of posts from automatically-detected users revealed discussions about side effects, non-adherence and mental health conditions, illustrating the feasibility of our social media-based approach for studying breast cancer related PCOs from a large population.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.