ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2020
Automatically classifying the evidence type of drug-drug interaction research papers as a step toward computer supported evidence curation.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 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.
- Developing a Knowledge Graph for Pharmacokinetic Natural Product-Drug Interactions.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A longstanding issue with knowledge bases that discuss drug-drug interactions (DDIs) is that they are inconsistent with one another. Computerized support might help experts be more objective in assessing DDI evidence. A requirement for such systems is accurate automatic classification of evidence types. In this pilot study, we developed a hierarchical classifier to classify clinical DDI studies into formally defined evidence types. The area under the ROC curve for sub-classifiers in the ensemble ranged from 0.78 to 0.87. The entire system achieved an F1 of 0.83 and 0.63 on two held-out datasets, the latter consisting focused on completely novel drugs from what the system was trained on. The results suggest that it is feasible to accurately automate the classification of a sub-set of DDI evidence types and that the hierarchical approach shows promise. Future work will test more advanced feature engineering techniques while expanding the system to classify a more complex set of evidence types.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33936429PMC8075461What 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.