ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Efficient analysis of drug interactions in liver injury: a retrospective study leveraging natural language processing and machine learning.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Artificial intelligence and computational methods in the Asia-Pacific pharmacovigilance landscape: a systematic review.International journal of public health · 2026Pooled it
- Computational approaches for drug-drug interaction prediction: a systematic review of data sources, modeling strategies, and evaluation frameworks.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- High-throughput signal detection of hepatotoxic drug-drug interactions in hospitalized elderly patients: an NLP-driven pharmacovigilance study.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Common Adverse Reactions and Management Strategies of First-Line Anti-Tuberculosis Drugs.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Review
- Large Language Models for Adverse Drug Events: A Clinical Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLiver injury from drug-drug interactions (DDIs), notably with anti-tuberculosis drugs such as isoniazid, poses a significant safety concern. Electronic medical records contain comprehensive clinical information and have gained increasing attention as a potential resource for DDI detection. However, a substantial portion of adverse drug reaction (ADR) information is hidden in unstructured narrative text, which has yet to be efficiently harnessed, thereby introducing bias into the research. There is a significant need for an efficient framework for the DDI assessment.
methodsUsing a Chinese natural language processing (NLP) model, we extracted 25,130 adverse drug reaction (ADR) records, dividing them into sets for training an automated normalization model. The trained models, in conjunction with liver function laboratory tests, were used to thoroughly and efficiently identify liver injury cases. Ultimately, we applied a case-control study design to detect DDI signals increasing isoniazid's liver injury risk.
resultsThe Logistic Regression model demonstrated stable and superior performance in classification task. Based on laboratory criteria and NLP, we identified 128 liver injury cases among a cohort of 3,209 patients treated with isoniazid. Preliminary screening of 113 drug combinations with isoniazid highlighted 20 potential signal drugs, with antibacterials constituting 25%. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of signal drugs, especially in cardiac therapy and antibacterials.
conclusionOur NLP and machine learning approach effectively identifies isoniazid-related DDIs that increase the risk of liver injury, identifying 20 signal drugs, mainly antibacterials. Further research is required to validate these DDI signals.
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.