ArticleHeliyon2024
Are polypharmacy side effects predicted by public data still valid in real-world data?
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factor analysis investigating the use of potentially inappropriate medications.Frontiers in medicine · 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
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Although interest in predicting drug-drug interactions is growing, many predictions are not verified by real-world data. This study aimed to confirm whether predicted polypharmacy side effects using public data also occur in data from actual patients. Methods: We utilized a deep learning-based polypharmacy side effects prediction model to identify cefpodoxime-chlorpheniramine-lung edema combination with a high prediction score and a significant patient population. The retrospective study analyzed patients over 18 years old who were admitted to the Asan medical center between January 2000 and December 2020 and took cefpodoxime or chlorpheniramine orally. The three groups, cefpodoxime-treated, chlorpheniramine-treated, and cefpodoxime & chlorpheniramine-treated were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance them. Differences between the three groups were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Results: The study population comprised 54,043 patients with a history of taking cefpodoxime, 203,897 patients with a history of taking chlorpheniramine, and 1,628 patients with a history of taking cefpodoxime and chlorpheniramine simultaneously. After adjustment, the 1-year cumulative incidence of lung edema in the patient group that took cefpodoxime and chlorpheniramine simultaneously was significantly higher than in the patient groups that took cefpodoxime or chlorpheniramine only (p=0.001). Patients taking cefpodoxime and chlorpheniramine together had an increased risk of lung edema compared to those taking cefpodoxime alone [hazard ratio (HR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.26-3.52, p<0.005] and those taking chlorpheniramine alone, which also increased the risk of lung edema (HR 1.64, 95% CI 0.99-2.69, p=0.05). Conclusions: Validation of polypharmacy side effect predictions with real-world data can aid patient and clinician decision-making before conducting randomized controlled trials. Simultaneous use of cefpodoxime and chlorpheniramine was associated with a higher long-term risk of lung edema compared to the use of cefpodoxime or chlorpheniramine alone.
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.