Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38842929›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Trust but Verify: Lessons Learned for the Application of AI to Case-Based Clinical Decision-Making From Postmarketing Drug Safety Assessment at the US Food and Drug Administration.

Robert Ball, Andrew H Talal, Oanh Dang, Monica Muñoz, Marianthi Markatou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

5 authors.

Robert BallOffice of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1609-7420
Andrew H TalalJacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Buffalo, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5565-7515
Oanh DangOffice of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States.ORCID 0009-0007-9505-945X
Monica MuñozOffice of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9754-1986
Marianthi MarkatouSchool of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1453-8229

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adverse drug reactions are a common cause of morbidity in health care. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates individual case safety reports of adverse events (AEs) after submission to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System as part of its surveillance activities. Over the past decade, the FDA has explored the application of artificial intelligence (AI) to evaluate these reports to improve the efficiency and scientific rigor of the process. However, a gap remains between AI algorithm development and deployment. This viewpoint aims to describe the lessons learned from our experience and research needed to address both general issues in case-based reasoning using AI and specific needs for individual case safety report assessment. Beginning with the recognition that the trustworthiness of the AI algorithm is the main determinant of its acceptance by human experts, we apply the Diffusion of Innovations theory to help explain why certain algorithms for evaluating AEs at the FDA were accepted by safety reviewers and others were not. This analysis reveals that the process by which clinicians decide from case reports whether a drug is likely to cause an AE is not well defined beyond general principles. This makes the development of high performing, transparent, and explainable AI algorithms challenging, leading to a lack of trust by the safety reviewers. Even accounting for the introduction of large language models, the pharmacovigilance community needs an improved understanding of causal inference and of the cognitive framework for determining the causal relationship between a drug and an AE. We describe specific future research directions that underpin facilitating implementation and trust in AI for drug safety applications, including improved methods for measuring and controlling of algorithmic uncertainty, computational reproducibility, and clear articulation of a cognitive framework for causal inference in case-based reasoning.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAdverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsAlgorithmsClinical Decision-MakingDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansProduct Surveillance, PostmarketingTrustUnited Statesartificial intelligencecase-based reasoningcausal inferenceclinical decision supportdrug safetymachine learningnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID38842929
PMCPMC11190620

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.