Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30462745›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Machine learning model combining features from algorithms with different analytical methodologies to detect laboratory-event-related adverse drug reaction signals.

Eugene Jeong, Namgi Park, Young Choi, Rae Woong Park, Dukyong Yoon

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. 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 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Prediction of Prednisolone Dose Correction Using Machine Learning.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eugene JeongDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Namgi ParkDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Young ChoiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8314-6130
Rae Woong ParkDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Dukyong YoonDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1635-8376

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of identifying and evaluating adverse drug reactions (ADRs) has been widely recognized. Many studies have developed algorithms for ADR signal detection using electronic health record (EHR) data. In this study, we propose a machine learning (ML) model that enables accurate ADR signal detection by integrating features from existing algorithms based on inpatient EHR laboratory results. MATERIALS AND

methodsTo construct an ADR reference dataset, we extracted known drug-laboratory event pairs represented by a laboratory test from the EU-SPC and SIDER databases. All possible drug-laboratory event pairs, except known ones, are considered unknown. To detect a known drug-laboratory event pair, three existing algorithms-CERT, CLEAR, and PACE-were applied to 21-year inpatient EHR data. We also constructed ML models (based on random forest, L1 regularized logistic regression, support vector machine, and a neural network) that use the intermediate products of the CERT, CLEAR, and PACE algorithms as inputs and determine whether a drug-laboratory event pair is associated. For performance comparison, we evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), F1-measure, and area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC).

resultsAll measures of ML models outperformed those of existing algorithms with sensitivity of 0.593-0.793, specificity of 0.619-0.796, NPV of 0.645-0.727, PPV of 0.680-0.777, F1-measure of 0.629-0.709, and AUROC of 0.737-0.816. Features related to change or distribution of shape were considered important for detecting ADR signals.

conclusionsImproved performance of ML models indicated that applying our model to EHR data is feasible and promising for detecting more accurate and comprehensive ADR signals.

Indexed as

LaboratoriesMachine LearningDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsSoftware

Identifiers

PMID30462745
PMCPMC6248973

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.