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.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Trust in Artificial Intelligence-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems Among Health Care Workers: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence in Pharmacovigilance: Guiding Principles from the CIOMS Working Group XIV.Drug safety · 2026Review
- AI for Causality Assessment in Pharmacovigilance: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Does generative AI mean the "end of history" for pharmacovigilance automation? towards a framework for the future of human-AI systems.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2026Article
- An Evaluation of Duplicate Adverse Event Reports Characteristics in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System.Drug safety · 2025Article
- FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Essentials: A Guide to Understanding, Applying, and Interpreting Adverse Event Data Reported to FAERS.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- Toward Standardized Performance Metrics in the Cardiovascular ICU: A Systematic Review of Quality Indicators.Cureus · 2025Review
- Theoretical appraisal of explanatory paradigms for artificial intelligence usage by medical doctors.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.