Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27333889›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016

Generalized enrichment analysis improves the detection of adverse drug events from the biomedical literature.

Rainer Winnenburg, Nigam H Shah

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Discovering associations between problem list and practice setting.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Performing an Informatics Consult: Methods and Challenges.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2018
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rainer WinnenburgStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, 1265 Welch Road, MSOB, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. rainer.winnenburg@stanford.edu.
Nigam H ShahStanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, 1265 Welch Road, MSOB, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Stanford Medicine · US

Funding

Methods for generalized ontology terms enrichment analysisR01LM011369 · NLM · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SHAH, NIGAM H · 2013 to 2020
$5.0M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011369
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdentification of associations between marketed drugs and adverse events from the biomedical literature assists drug safety monitoring efforts. Assessing the significance of such literature-derived associations and determining the granularity at which they should be captured remains a challenge. Here, we assess how defining a selection of adverse event terms from MeSH, based on information content, can improve the detection of adverse events for drugs and drug classes.

resultsWe analyze a set of 105,354 candidate drug adverse event pairs extracted from article indexes in MEDLINE. First, we harmonize extracted adverse event terms by aggregating them into higher-level MeSH terms based on the terms' information content. Then, we determine statistical enrichment of adverse events associated with drug and drug classes using a conditional hypergeometric test that adjusts for dependencies among associated terms. We compare our results with methods based on disproportionality analysis (proportional reporting ratio, PRR) and quantify the improvement in signal detection with our generalized enrichment analysis (GEA) approach using a gold standard of drug-adverse event associations spanning 174 drugs and four events. For single drugs, the best GEA method (Precision: .92/Recall: .71/F1-measure: .80) outperforms the best PRR based method (.69/.69/.69) on all four adverse event outcomes in our gold standard. For drug classes, our GEA performs similarly (.85/.69/.74) when increasing the level of abstraction for adverse event terms. Finally, on examining the 1609 individual drugs in our MEDLINE set, which map to chemical substances in ATC, we find signals for 1379 drugs (10,122 unique adverse event associations) on applying GEA with p < 0.005.

conclusionsWe present an approach based on generalized enrichment analysis that can be used to detect associations between drugs, drug classes and adverse events at a given level of granularity, at the same time correcting for known dependencies among events. Our study demonstrates the use of GEA, and the importance of choosing appropriate abstraction levels to complement current drug safety methods. We provide an R package for exploration of alternative abstraction levels of adverse event terms based on information content.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsInformation Storage and RetrievalMedical Subject HeadingsAnimalsComputational BiologyHumansHypoglycemic AgentsMEDLINEPioglitazoneThiazolidinedionesUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsHypoglycemic AgentsPioglitazoneThiazolidinedionesEnrichment analysisInformation retrievalMeSH indexingPostmarketing pharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID27333889
PMCPMC4918084
OpenAlexW2465730666

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.