ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2019
A systematic approach for developing a corpus of patient reported adverse drug events: A case study for SSRI and SNRI medications.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Conversation to Standardized Terminology: An LLM-RAG Approach for Automated Health Problem Identification in Home Healthcare.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025Article
- Reasons for Discontinuation or Change of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors in Online Drug Reviews.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- A risk identification model for detection of patients at risk of antidepressant discontinuation.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Article
- Social Media Analytics for Pharmacovigilance of Antiepileptic Drugs.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Use of Automated Thematic Annotations for Small Data Sets in a Psychotherapeutic Context: Systematic Review of Machine Learning Algorithms.JMIR mental health · 2021Review
- The Unified Medical Language System at 30 Years and How It Is Used and Published: Systematic Review and Content Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Review
- Analyzing Patient Secure Messages Using a Fast Health Care Interoperability Resources (FIHR)-Based Data Model: Development and Topic Modeling Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Measuring the Value of a Practical Text Mining Approach to Identify Patients With Housing Issues in the Free-Text Notes in Electronic Health Record: Findings of a Retrospective Cohort Study.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Distant supervision for medical concept normalization.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2020Article
- RadLex Normalization in Radiology Reports.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2020Article
- A Systematic Framework for Analyzing Patient-Generated Narrative Data: Protocol for a Content Analysis.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- The PsyTAR dataset: From patients generated narratives to a corpus of adverse drug events and effectiveness of psychiatric medications.Data in brief · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
"Psychiatric Treatment Adverse Reactions" (PsyTAR) corpus is an annotated corpus that has been developed using patients narrative data for psychiatric medications, particularly SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor) and SNRIs (Serotonin Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitor) medications. This corpus consists of three main components: sentence classification, entity identification, and entity normalization. We split the review posts into sentences and labeled them for presence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) (2168 sentences), withdrawal symptoms (WDs) (438 sentences), sign/symptoms/illness (SSIs) (789 sentences), drug indications (517), drug effectiveness (EF) (1087 sentences), and drug infectiveness (INF) (337 sentences). In the entity identification phase, we identified and extracted ADRs (4813 mentions), WDs (590 mentions), SSIs (1219 mentions), and DIs (792). In the entity normalization phase, we mapped the identified entities to the corresponding concepts in both UMLS (918 unique concepts) and SNOMED CT (755 unique concepts). Four annotators double coded the sentences and the span of identified entities by strictly following guidelines rules developed for this study. We used the PsyTAR sentence classification component to automatically train a range of supervised machine learning classifiers to identifying text segments with the mentions of ADRs, WDs, DIs, SSIs, EF, and INF. SVMs classifiers had the highest performance with F-Score 0.90. We also measured performance of the cTAKES (clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System) in identifying patients' expressions of ADRs and WDs with and without adding PsyTAR dictionary to the core dictionary of cTAKES. Augmenting cTAKES dictionary with PsyTAR improved the F-score cTAKES by 25%. The findings imply that PsyTAR has significant implications for text mining algorithms aimed to identify information about adverse drug events and drug effectiveness from patients' narratives data, by linking the patients' expressions of adverse drug events to medical standard vocabularies. The corpus is publicly available at Zolnoori et al. [30].
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.