Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 10:13:e71687.
doi: 10.2196/71687.

Detecting Redundant Health Survey Questions by Using Language-Agnostic Bidirectional Encoder Representations From Transformers Sentence Embedding: Algorithm Development Study

Affiliations

Detecting Redundant Health Survey Questions by Using Language-Agnostic Bidirectional Encoder Representations From Transformers Sentence Embedding: Algorithm Development Study

Sunghoon Kang et al. JMIR Med Inform. .

Abstract

Background: As the importance of person-generated health data (PGHD) in health care and research has increased, efforts have been made to standardize survey-based PGHD to improve its usability and interoperability. Standardization efforts such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Data Elements (CDE) repository provide effective tools for managing and unifying health survey questions. However, previous methods using ontology-mediated annotation are not only labor-intensive and difficult to scale but also challenging for identifying semantic redundancies in survey questions, especially across multiple languages.

Objective: The goal of this work was to compute the semantic similarity among publicly available health survey questions to facilitate the standardization of survey-based PGHD.

Methods: We compiled various health survey questions authored in both English and Korean from the NIH CDE repository, PROMIS, Korean public health agencies, and academic publications. Questions were drawn from various health lifelog domains. A randomized question pairing scheme was used to generate a semantic text similarity dataset consisting of 1758 question pairs. The similarity scores between each question pair were assigned by 2 human experts. The tagged dataset was then used to build 4 classifiers featuring bag-of-words, sentence-bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (SBERT) with bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT)-based embeddings, SBERT with language-agnostic BERT sentence embedding (LaBSE), and GPT-4o. The algorithms were evaluated using traditional contingency statistics.

Results: Among the 3 algorithms, SBERT-LaBSE demonstrated the highest performance in assessing the question similarity across both languages, achieving area under the receiver operating characteristic and precision-recall curves of >0.99. Additionally, SBERT-LaBSE proved effective in identifying cross-lingual semantic similarities. The SBERT-LaBSE algorithm excelled at aligning semantically equivalent sentences across both languages but encountered challenges in capturing subtle nuances and maintaining computational efficiency. Future research should focus on testing with larger multilingual datasets and on calibrating and normalizing scores across the health lifelog domains to improve consistency.

Conclusions: This study introduces the SBERT-LaBSE algorithm for calculating the semantic similarity across 2 languages, showing that it outperforms BERT-based models, the GPT-4o model, and the bag-of-words approach, highlighting its potential in improving the semantic interoperability of survey-based PGHD across language barriers.

Keywords: BERT; LaBSE; PGHD; SBERT; bidirectional encoder representations from transformers; interoperability; language-agnostic BERT sentence embedding; person-generated health data; semantic similarity; sentence-bidirectional encoder representations from transformers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. The process of preparing the semantic textual similarity dataset for fine-tuning and evaluation. CDE: common data elements; NIH: National Institutes of Health; PGHD: person-generated health data; PROMIS: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; Rand: random selection; STS: semantic textual similarity.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Similarity calculation with the 4 algorithms. API: application programming interface; BERT: bidirectional encoder representations from transformers; BoW: bag-of-words; Eng: English; Kor: Korean; LaBSE: language-agnostic bidirectional encoder representations from transformers sentence embedding; SBERT: sentence-bidirectional encoder representations from transformers.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Receiver operating characteristic and precision-recall curves for pretrained and fine-tuned embeddings on English and Korean questions, combining the health lifelog domains. AUC: area under the curve; BERT: bidirectional encoder representations from transformers; BoW: bag-of-words; Eng: English; Kor: Korean; LaBSE: language-agnostic bidirectional encoder representations from transformers sentence embedding; PR: precision-recall; ROC: receiver operating characteristic; SBERT: sentence-bidirectional encoder representations from transformers.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.. Performance of the cross-language semantic similarity determination. AUC: area under the curve; BERT: bidirectional encoder representations from transformers; BoW: bag-of-words; Eng: English; Kor: Korean; LaBSE: language-agnostic bidirectional encoder representations from transformers sentence embedding; PR: precision-recall; ROC: receiver operating characteristic; SBERT: sentence-bidirectional encoder representations from transformers.

Similar articles

References

    1. Shapiro M, Johnston D, Wald J, Mon D. Patient-generated health data. White paper. Official Website of the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT. 2012. [31-05-2025]. https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/rti_pghd_whitepaper_april_2... URL. Accessed.
    1. Patient-generated health data. Official Website of the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy/Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT. [08-05-2025]. https://www.healthit.gov/topic/scientific-initiatives/pcor/patient-gener... URL. Accessed.
    1. Islind AS, Lindroth T, Lundin J, Steineck G. Shift in translations: data work with patient-generated health data in clinical practice. Health Informatics J. 2019 Sep;25(3):577–586. doi: 10.1177/1460458219833097. doi. Medline. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sanger PC, Hartzler A, Lordon RJ, et al. A patient-centered system in a provider-centered world: challenges of incorporating post-discharge wound data into practice. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 May;23(3):514–525. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv183. doi. Medline. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adler-Milstein J, Nong P. Early experiences with patient generated health data: health system and patient perspectives. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Oct 1;26(10):952–959. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocz045. doi. Medline. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources