ReviewDrug safety2024
Validation of a Natural Language Machine Learning Model for Safety Literature Surveillance.
Review in Drug safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contrastive learning of adverse events to provide effective and interpretable vector representations for machine-assisted pharmacovigilance.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- The landscape of artificial intelligence tools and platforms for evidence synthesis: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAs part of routine safety surveillance, thousands of articles of potential interest are manually triaged for review by safety surveillance teams. This manual triage task is an interesting candidate for automation based on the abundance of process data available for training, the performance of natural language processing algorithms for this type of cognitive task, and the small number of safety signals that originate from literature review, resulting in its lower risk profile. However, deep learning algorithms introduce unique risks and the validation of such models for use in Good Pharmacovigilance Practice remains an open question.
objectiveQualifying an automated, deep learning approach to literature surveillance for use at AstraZeneca.
methodsThe study is a prospective validation of a literature surveillance triage model, comparing its real-world performance with that of human surveillance teams working in parallel. The biggest risk in modifying this triage process is missing a safety signal (resulting in model false negatives) and hence model recall is the main evaluation metric considered.
resultsThe model demonstrates consistent global performance from training through testing, with recall rates comparable to that of existing surveillance teams. The model is accepted for use specifically for those products where non-inferiority to the manual process is rigorously demonstrated.
conclusionCharacterizing model performance prospectively, under real-world conditions, allows us to thoroughly examine model consistency and failure modes, qualifying it for use in our surveillance processes. We also identify potential future improvements and recognize the opportunity for the community to collaborate on this shared task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37938539What 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.