Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29446035›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2018

Sorting Through the Safety Data Haystack: Using Machine Learning to Identify Individual Case Safety Reports in Social-Digital Media.

Shaun Comfort, Sujan Perera, Zoe Hudson, Darren Dorrell, Shawman Meireis, Meenakshi Nagarajan, Cartic Ramakrishnan, Jennifer Fine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Pharmacovigilance in the digital age: gaining insight from social media data.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Artificial Intelligence for Drug Toxicity and Safety.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

8 authors.

Shaun ComfortGenentech, A Member of the Roche Group, Roche, South San Francisco, CA, USA. comforts@gene.com.
Sujan PereraIBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Zoe HudsonGenentech, A Member of the Roche Group, Roche, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Darren DorrellGenentech, A Member of the Roche Group, Roche, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Shawman MeireisGenentech, A Member of the Roche Group, Roche, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Meenakshi NagarajanIBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Cartic RamakrishnanIBM Watson Health, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Jennifer FineGenentech, A Member of the Roche Group, Roche, South San Francisco, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PharmacovigilanceAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsBloggingDatabases, FactualData MiningDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansInternetMachine LearningSocial Media

Identifiers

PMID29446035
PMCPMC5966485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.