ArticleJournal of biomedical semantics2020
Neural side effect discovery from user credibility and experience-assessed online health discussions.
Article in Journal of biomedical semantics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Drug Safety Across the Lifecycle and Decision Type: A Scoping Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth 2.0 allows patients and caregivers to conveniently seek medical information and advice via e-portals and online discussion forums, especially regarding potential drug side effects. Although online health communities are helpful platforms for obtaining non-professional opinions, they pose risks in communicating unreliable and insufficient information in terms of quality and quantity. Existing methods in extracting user-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in online health forums are not only insufficiently accurate as they disregard user credibility and drug experience, but are also expensive as they rely on supervised ground truth annotation of individual statement. We propose a NEural ArchiTecture for Drug side effect prediction (NEAT), which is optimized on the task of drug side effect discovery based on a complete discussion while being attentive to user credibility and experience, thus, addressing the mentioned shortcomings. We train our neural model in a self-supervised fashion using ground truth drug side effects from mayoclinic.org. NEAT learns to assign each user a score that is descriptive of their credibility and highlights the critical textual segments of their post.
resultsExperiments show that NEAT improves drug side effect discovery from online health discussion by 3.04% from user-credibility agnostic baselines, and by 9.94% from non-neural baselines in term of F
conclusionsNEAT considers both user credibility and experience in online health forums, making feasible a self-supervised approach to side effect prediction for mentioned drugs. The derived user credibility and attention mechanism are transferable and improve downstream ADR extraction models. Our approach enhances automatic drug side effect discovery and fosters research in several domains including pharmacovigilance and clinical studies.
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.