Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31066711›Full record

ArticleJMIR research protocols2019

The Adverse Drug Reactions From Patient Reports in Social Media Project: Protocol for an Evaluation Against a Gold Standard.

Armelle Arnoux-Guenegou, Yannick Girardeau, Xiaoyi Chen, Myrtille Deldossi, Rim Aboukhamis, Carole Faviez, Badisse Dahamna, Pierre Karapetiantz, Sylvie Guillemin-Lanne, Agnès Lillo-Le Louët and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR research protocols, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors.

Armelle Arnoux-GuenegouINSERM U1138 - Team 22, Information Sciences to Support Personalized Medicine, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3427-7086
Yannick GirardeauINSERM U1138 - Team 22, Information Sciences to Support Personalized Medicine, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3980-0104
Xiaoyi ChenINSERM U1138 - Team 22, Information Sciences to Support Personalized Medicine, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7378-5158
Myrtille DeldossiInnovative Projects - Text Mining, Expert System, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8268-3922
Rim AboukhamisCentre Régional de Pharmacovigilance, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3066-0125
Carole FaviezKappa Santé, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1500-0236
Badisse DahamnaService d'Informatique Biomédicale, D2IM, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rouen, Rouen, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0762-2518
Pierre KarapetiantzINSERM U1138 - Team 22, Information Sciences to Support Personalized Medicine, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6486-9838
Sylvie Guillemin-LanneInnovative Projects - Text Mining, Expert System, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3528-2514
Agnès Lillo-Le LouëtCentre Régional de Pharmacovigilance, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8135-7340
Nathalie TexierKappa Santé, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3749-254X
Anita BurgunINSERM U1138 - Team 22, Information Sciences to Support Personalized Medicine, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6855-4366
Sandrine KatsahianINSERM U1138 - Team 22, Information Sciences to Support Personalized Medicine, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7261-0671

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media is a potential source of information on postmarketing drug safety surveillance that still remains unexploited nowadays. Information technology solutions aiming at extracting adverse reactions (ADRs) from posts on health forums require a rigorous evaluation methodology if their results are to be used to make decisions. First, a gold standard, consisting of manual annotations of the ADR by human experts from the corpus extracted from social media, must be implemented and its quality must be assessed. Second, as for clinical research protocols, the sample size must rely on statistical arguments. Finally, the extraction methods must target the relation between the drug and the disease (which might be either treated or caused by the drug) rather than simple co-occurrences in the posts.

objectiveWe propose a standardized protocol for the evaluation of a software extracting ADRs from the messages on health forums. The study is conducted as part of the Adverse Drug Reactions from Patient Reports in Social Media project.

methodsMessages from French health forums were extracted. Entity recognition was based on Racine Pharma lexicon for drugs and Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terminology for potential adverse events (AEs). Natural language processing-based techniques automated the ADR information extraction (relation between the drug and AE entities). The corpus of evaluation was a random sample of the messages containing drugs and/or AE concepts corresponding to recent pharmacovigilance alerts. A total of 2 persons experienced in medical terminology manually annotated the corpus, thus creating the gold standard, according to an annotator guideline. We will evaluate our tool against the gold standard with recall, precision, and f-measure. Interannotator agreement, reflecting gold standard quality, will be evaluated with hierarchical kappa. Granularities in the terminologies will be further explored.

resultsNecessary and sufficient sample size was calculated to ensure statistical confidence in the assessed results. As we expected a global recall of 0.5, we needed at least 384 identified ADR concepts to obtain a 95% CI with a total width of 0.10 around 0.5. The automated ADR information extraction in the corpus for evaluation is already finished. The 2 annotators already completed the annotation process. The analysis of the performance of the ADR information extraction module as compared with gold standard is ongoing.

conclusionsThis protocol is based on the standardized statistical methods from clinical research to create the corpus, thus ensuring the necessary statistical power of the assessed results. Such evaluation methodology is required to make the ADR information extraction software useful for postmarketing drug safety surveillance. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/11448.

Indexed as

data miningdrug-related side effects and adverse reactionsMedDRAnatural language processingRacine Pharmasocial media

Identifiers

PMID31066711
PMCPMC6528435

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.