Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
10.55041/IJSREM25546
Volume:
7 |
9 |
Sep 2023
Pages:
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
The problem of fake news, which existed even before Internet prevalence, has been made worse by the internet’s growth and adoption. If the news is concerning your health, this becomes more urgent. This study suggests Content Based Models (CBM) and Feature Based Models (FBM) as solutions to this problem. The supplied input is what distinguishes the two models. The FBM also takes two readability features as input in addition to the content, whereas the CBM simply accepts news content as an input. Under each category, the effectiveness of two hybrid deep learning approaches, namely CNN-LSTM and CNN-BiLSTM, is compared with five classic machine learning techniques: Decision Tree, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, AdaBoost-Decision Tree, and AdaBoost-Random Forest. The study used the Fake News Healthcare dataset, which included 9581 stories. This extremely unbalanced dataset is balanced using a simple data augmentation technique. The experimental findings show that Feature Based Models outperform Content Based Models in terms of performance. AdaBoost-Random Forest had an F1 Score of 98.9%, while the Hybrid CNN-LSTM model had an F1 Score of 97.09% among the proposed FBM. The best-performing model for classifying fake news is Adaboost-Random Forest under FBM.
KEYWORDS
Publication Date
4/8/2023
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
0
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
1
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...