Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29180758›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Knowledge graph prediction of unknown adverse drug reactions and validation in electronic health records.

Daniel M Bean, Honghan Wu, Ehtesham Iqbal, Olubanke Dzahini, Zina M Ibrahim, Matthew Broadbent, Robert Stewart, Richard J B Dobson

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Multimodal Wearable Biosensing Meets Multidomain AI: A Pathway to Decentralized Healthcare.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. A patient safety knowledge graph supporting vaccine product development.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Artificial intelligence in the field of pharmacy practice: A literature review.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Daniel M BeanDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Honghan WuDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Ehtesham IqbalDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Olubanke DzahiniSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AZ, United Kingdom.
Zina M IbrahimDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, United Kingdom.
Matthew BroadbentSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AZ, United Kingdom.
Robert StewartSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AZ, United Kingdom.
Richard J B DobsonDepartment of Biostatistics and Health Informatics, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, United Kingdom. richard.j.dobson@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4224-9245

Funding

Arthritis Research UKBritish Heart FoundationCancer Research UKChief Scientist OfficeDepartment of Health 05/40/04Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10314Medical Research Council MC_PC_13041Medical Research Council MR/K006584/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unknown adverse reactions to drugs available on the market present a significant health risk and limit accurate judgement of the cost/benefit trade-off for medications. Machine learning has the potential to predict unknown adverse reactions from current knowledge. We constructed a knowledge graph containing four types of node: drugs, protein targets, indications and adverse reactions. Using this graph, we developed a machine learning algorithm based on a simple enrichment test and first demonstrated this method performs extremely well at classifying known causes of adverse reactions (AUC 0.92). A cross validation scheme in which 10% of drug-adverse reaction edges were systematically deleted per fold showed that the method correctly predicts 68% of the deleted edges on average. Next, a subset of adverse reactions that could be reliably detected in anonymised electronic health records from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust were used to validate predictions from the model that are not currently known in public databases. High-confidence predictions were validated in electronic records significantly more frequently than random models, and outperformed standard methods (logistic regression, decision trees and support vector machines). This approach has the potential to improve patient safety by predicting adverse reactions that were not observed during randomised trials.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsKnowledge BasesAlgorithmsDatabases, FactualDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansMachine LearningPrognosisPublic Health SurveillanceReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID29180758
PMCPMC5703951

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.