ArticleDrug safety2020
Application of Augmented Intelligence for Pharmacovigilance Case Seriousness Determination.
Article in Drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmacovigilance in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Advancements, Challenges, and Considerations.Cureus · 2025Review
- Oropharyngeal Adverse Events to Drugs and Vaccines: Pharmacovigilance Data From Italy (2019-2021).Oral diseases · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence for optimizing benefits and minimizing risks of pharmacological therapies: challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2024Review
- Artificial intelligence integration in the drug lifecycle and in regulatory science: policy implications, challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- BERT based natural language processing for triage of adverse drug reaction reports shows close to human-level performance.PLOS digital health · 2023Article
- Hypothesis testing procedure for binary and multi-class FStatistics in medicine · 2023Article
- An industry perspective on the use of machine learning in drug and vaccine safety.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2023Article
- The Coming of Age of AI/ML in Drug Discovery, Development, Clinical Testing, and Manufacturing: The FDA Perspectives.Drug design, development and therapy · 2023Article
- LiSA: an assisted literature search pipeline for detecting serious adverse drug events with deep learning.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- "Artificial Intelligence" for Pharmacovigilance: Ready for Prime Time?Drug safety · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Unstructured Healthcare Data: Application to Coding of Patient Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2021Article
- Article
- Applied intelligence in clinical drug development: Potential benefits and emerging concerns.Perspectives in clinical researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIdentification of adverse events and determination of their seriousness ensures timely detection of potential patient safety concerns. Adverse event seriousness is a key factor in defining reporting timelines and is often performed manually by pharmacovigilance experts. The dramatic increase in the volume of safety reports necessitates exploration of scalable solutions that also meet reporting timeline requirements.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop an augmented intelligence methodology for automatically identifying adverse event seriousness in spontaneous, solicited, and medical literature safety reports. Deep learning models were evaluated for accuracy and/or the F1 score against a ground truth labeled by pharmacovigilance experts.
methodsUsing a stratified random sample of safety reports received by Celgene, we developed three neural networks for addressing identification of adverse event seriousness: (1) a binary adverse-event level seriousness classifier; (2) a classifier for determining seriousness categorization at the adverse-event level; and (3) an annotator for identifying seriousness criteria terms to provide supporting evidence at the document level.
resultsThe seriousness classifier achieved an accuracy of 83.0% in post-marketing reports, 92.9% in solicited reports, and 86.3% in medical literature reports. F1 scores for seriousness categorization were 77.7 for death, 78.9 for hospitalization, and 75.5 for important medical events. The seriousness annotator achieved an F1 score of 89.9 in solicited reports, and 75.2 in medical literature reports.
conclusionsThe results of this study indicate that a neural network approach can provide an accurate and scalable solution for potentially augmenting pharmacovigilance practitioner determination of adverse event seriousness in spontaneous, solicited, and medical literature reports.
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.