Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35704662›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Explainable detection of adverse drug reaction with imbalanced data distribution.

Jin Wang, Liang-Chih Yu, Xuejie Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jin WangSchool of Information Science and Engineering, Yunnan University, Kunming, China.
Liang-Chih YuDepartment of Information Management, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-1443-4347
Xuejie ZhangSchool of Information Science and Engineering, Yunnan University, Kunming, China.
Yunnan University · CNYuan Ze University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Analysis of health-related texts can be used to detect adverse drug reactions (ADR). The greatest challenge for ADR detection lies in imbalanced data distributions where words related to ADR symptoms are often minority classes. As a result, trained models tend to converge to a point that strongly biases towards the majority class and then ignores the minority class. Since the most used cross-entropy criteria is an approximation to accuracy, the model focuses more readily on the majority class to achieve high accuracy. To address this issue, existing methods apply either oversampling or down-sampling strategies to balance the data distribution and exploit the most difficult samples of the minority class. However, increasing or reducing the number of individual tokens alone in sequence labeling tasks will result in the loss of the syntactic relations of the sentence. This paper proposes a weighted variant of conditional random field (CRF) for data-imbalanced sequence labeling tasks. Such a weighting strategy can alleviate data distribution imbalances between majority and minority classes. Instead of using softmax in the output layer, the CRF can capture the relationship of labels between tokens. The locally interpretable model-agnostic explanations (LIME) algorithm was applied to investigate performance differences between models with and without the weighted loss function. Experimental results on two different ADR tasks show that the proposed model outperforms previously proposed sequence labeling methods.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAlgorithmsData CollectionHumans

Identifiers

PMID35704662
PMCPMC9239481
OpenAlexW4282929392

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.