ArticleApplied clinical informatics2013
The contribution of the vaccine adverse event text mining system to the classification of possible Guillain-Barré syndrome reports.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational tools and data integration to accelerate vaccine development: challenges, opportunities, and future directions.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Trust but Verify: Lessons Learned for the Application of AI to Case-Based Clinical Decision-Making From Postmarketing Drug Safety Assessment at the US Food and Drug Administration.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- "Artificial Intelligence" for Pharmacovigilance: Ready for Prime Time?Drug safety · 2022Article
- Extracting postmarketing adverse events from safety reports in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS) using deep learning.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
- Article
- Facilitating accurate health provider directories using natural language processing.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
- Development of an automated assessment tool for MedWatch reports in the FDA adverse event reporting system.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2017Article
- Monitoring biomedical literature for post-market safety purposes by analyzing networks of text-based coded information.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe previously demonstrated that a general purpose text mining system, the Vaccine adverse event Text Mining (VaeTM) system, could be used to automatically classify reports of an-aphylaxis for post-marketing safety surveillance of vaccines.
objectiveTo evaluate the ability of VaeTM to classify reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) of possible Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS).
methodsWe used VaeTM to extract the key diagnostic features from the text of reports in VAERS. Then, we applied the Brighton Collaboration (BC) case definition for GBS, and an information retrieval strategy (i.e. the vector space model) to quantify the specific information that is included in the key features extracted by VaeTM and compared it with the encoded information that is already stored in VAERS as Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) Preferred Terms (PTs). We also evaluated the contribution of the primary (diagnosis and cause of death) and secondary (second level diagnosis and symptoms) diagnostic VaeTM-based features to the total VaeTM-based information.
resultsMedDRA captured more information and better supported the classification of reports for GBS than VaeTM (AUC: 0.904 vs. 0.777); the lower performance of VaeTM is likely due to the lack of extraction by VaeTM of specific laboratory results that are included in the BC criteria for GBS. On the other hand, the VaeTM-based classification exhibited greater specificity than the MedDRA-based approach (94.96% vs. 87.65%). Most of the VaeTM-based information was contained in the secondary diagnostic features.
conclusionFor GBS, clinical signs and symptoms alone are not sufficient to match MedDRA coding for purposes of case classification, but are preferred if specificity is the priority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.