Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30725336›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2019

A Machine-Learning Algorithm to Optimise Automated Adverse Drug Reaction Detection from Clinical Coding.

Christopher McMaster, David Liew, Claire Keith, Parnaz Aminian, Albert Frauman

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2019. 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 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Adverse Drug Reactions in Neonates: How to Detect and Address Signals in the Noise.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christopher McMasterDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Austin Health, Level 5, Lance Townsend Building, Studley Rd, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia. christopher.mcmaster@austin.org.au.ORCID 0000-0003-2432-5451
David LiewDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Austin Health, Level 5, Lance Townsend Building, Studley Rd, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Claire KeithDepartment of Pharmacy, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Parnaz AminianDepartment of Pharmacy, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
Albert FraumanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Austin Health, Level 5, Lance Townsend Building, Studley Rd, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdverse drug reaction (ADR) detection in hospitals is heavily reliant on spontaneous reporting by clinical staff, with studies in the literature pointing to high rates of underreporting [1]. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes have been used in epidemiological studies of ADRs and offer the potential for automated ADR detection systems.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop an automated ADR detection system based on ICD-10 codes, using machine-learning algorithms to improve accuracy and efficiency.

methodsFor a 12-month period from December 2016 to November 2017, every inpatient episode receiving an ICD-10 code in the range Y40.0-Y59.9 (ADR code) was flagged for review as a potential ADR. Each flagged admission was assessed by an expert pharmacist and, if needed, reviewed at regular ADR committee meetings. For each report, a determination was made about ADR probability and severity. The dataset was randomly split into training and test sets. A machine-learning model using the random forest algorithm was developed on the training set to discriminate between true and false ADR reports. The model was then applied to the test set to assess accuracy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC).

resultsIn the study period, 2917 Y40.0-Y59.9 codes were applied to admissions, resulting in 245 ADR reports after review. These 245 reports accounted for 44.5% of all ADR reporting in our hospital in the study period. A random forest model built on the training set was able to discriminate between true and false reports on the test set with an AUC of 0.803.

conclusionsAutomated ADR detection using ICD-10 coding significantly improved ADR detection in the study period, with improved discrimination between true and false reports by applying a machine-learning model.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAlgorithmsClinical CodingDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHospitalizationHospitalsHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesMachine LearningROC Curve

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.