ArticleDrug safety2018
Sorting Through the Safety Data Haystack: Using Machine Learning to Identify Individual Case Safety Reports in Social-Digital Media.
Article in Drug safety, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Pharmacovigilance: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluating the effectiveness of AI-enhanced "One Body, Two Wings" pharmacovigilance models in China: a nationwide survey on medication safety and risk management.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Pharmacovigilance in the digital age: gaining insight from social media data.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence integration in the drug lifecycle and in regulatory science: policy implications, challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Indigenous population genome databases for India and South Asia: emerging need for health and social applications.Journal of genetics · 2023Review
- An industry perspective on the use of machine learning in drug and vaccine safety.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2023Article
- Supervised Machine Learning-Based Decision Support for Signal Validation Classification.Drug safety · 2022Article
- Machine Learning in Causal Inference: Application in Pharmacovigilance.Drug safety · 2022Review
- Using Healthcare Resources Wisely: A Predictive Support System Regarding the Severity of Patient Falls.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Developing Crowdsourced Training Data Sets for Pharmacovigilance Intelligent Automation.Drug safety · 2021Article
- Article
- Using Item Response Theory for Explainable Machine Learning in Predicting Mortality in the Intensive Care Unit: Case-Based Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Use of Social Media for Pharmacovigilance Activities: Key Findings and Recommendations from the Vigi4Med Project.Drug safety · 2020Article
- Utilizing Advanced Technologies to Augment Pharmacovigilance Systems: Challenges and Opportunities.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2020Review
- Application of Augmented Intelligence for Pharmacovigilance Case Seriousness Determination.Drug safety · 2020Article
- Adverse Events Due to Insomnia Drugs Reported in a Regulatory Database and Online Patient Reviews: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Drug Toxicity and Safety.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2019Review
- Innovation in Pharmacovigilance: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Adverse Event Case Processing.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2019Article
- First Conference on Big Data for Pharmacovigilance.Drug safety · 2018Review
- Training Augmented Intelligent Capabilities for Pharmacovigilance: Applying Deep-learning Approaches to Individual Case Safety Report Processing.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is increasing interest in social digital media (SDM) as a data source for pharmacovigilance activities; however, SDM is considered a low information content data source for safety data. Given that pharmacovigilance itself operates in a high-noise, lower-validity environment without objective 'gold standards' beyond process definitions, the introduction of large volumes of SDM into the pharmacovigilance workflow has the potential to exacerbate issues with limited manual resources to perform adverse event identification and processing. Recent advances in medical informatics have resulted in methods for developing programs which can assist human experts in the detection of valid individual case safety reports (ICSRs) within SDM.
objectiveIn this study, we developed rule-based and machine learning (ML) models for classifying ICSRs from SDM and compared their performance with that of human pharmacovigilance experts.
methodsWe used a random sampling from a collection of 311,189 SDM posts that mentioned Roche products and brands in combination with common medical and scientific terms sourced from Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and a spectrum of news media blogs to develop and evaluate three iterations of an automated ICSR classifier. The ICSR classifier models consisted of sub-components to annotate the relevant ICSR elements and a component to make the final decision on the validity of the ICSR. Agreement with human pharmacovigilance experts was chosen as the preferred performance metric and was evaluated by calculating the Gwet AC1 statistic (gKappa). The best performing model was tested against the Roche global pharmacovigilance expert using a blind dataset and put through a time test of the full 311,189-post dataset.
resultsDuring this effort, the initial strict rule-based approach to ICSR classification resulted in a model with an accuracy of 65% and a gKappa of 46%. Adding an ML-based adverse event annotator improved the accuracy to 74% and gKappa to 60%. This was further improved by the addition of an additional ML ICSR detector. On a blind test set of 2500 posts, the final model demonstrated a gKappa of 78% and an accuracy of 83%. In the time test, it took the final model 48 h to complete a task that would have taken an estimated 44,000 h for human experts to perform.
conclusionThe results of this study indicate that an effective and scalable solution to the challenge of ICSR detection in SDM includes a workflow using an automated ML classifier to identify likely ICSRs for further human SME review.
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.