SynthesisJCO clinical cancer informatics2020
Application of Artificial Intelligence Methods to Pharmacy Data for Cancer Surveillance and Epidemiology Research: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adverse Event Signal Detection Using Patients' Concerns in Pharmaceutical Care Records: Evaluation of Deep Learning Models.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Advancing Pharmacy Practice: The Role of Intelligence-Driven Pharmacy Practice and the Emergence of Pharmacointelligence.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence and its impact on the domains of universal health coverage, health emergencies and health promotion: An overview of systematic reviews.International journal of medical informatics · 2022Review
- Machine learning in the prediction of cancer therapy.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe implementation and utilization of electronic health records is generating a large volume and variety of data, which are difficult to process using traditional techniques. However, these data could help answer important questions in cancer surveillance and epidemiology research. Artificial intelligence (AI) data processing methods are capable of evaluating large volumes of data, yet current literature on their use in this context of pharmacy informatics is not well characterized.
methodsA systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate relevant publications within four domains (cancer, pharmacy, AI methods, population science) across PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library and included all publications indexed between July 17, 2008, and December 31, 2018. The search returned 3,271 publications, which were evaluated for inclusion.
resultsThere were 36 studies that met criteria for full-text abstraction. Of those, only 45% specifically identified the pharmacy data source, and 55% specified drug agents or drug classes. Multiple AI methods were used; 25% used machine learning (ML), 67% used natural language processing (NLP), and 8% combined ML and NLP.
conclusionThis review demonstrates that the application of AI data methods for pharmacy informatics and cancer epidemiology research is expanding. However, the data sources and representations are often missing, challenging study replicability. In addition, there is no consistent format for reporting results, and one of the preferred metrics, F-score, is often missing. There is a resultant need for greater transparency of original data sources and performance of AI methods with pharmacy data to improve the translation of these results into meaningful outcomes.
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.