ArticleDrug safety2025
Narrative Search Engine for Case Series Assessment Supported by Artificial Intelligence Query Suggestions.
Article in Drug safety, 2025. 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.
- Evaluation Frameworks for Clinical Foundation Models in Specific Tasks of Unstructured Medical Text Analysis: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
introductionManual identification of case narratives with specific relevant information can be challenging when working with large numbers of adverse event reports (case series). The process can be supported with a search engine, but building search queries often remains a manual task. Suggesting terms to add to the search query could support assessors in the identification of case narratives within a case series.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of identifying case narratives containing specific characteristics with a narrative search engine supported by artificial intelligence (AI) query suggestions.
methodsThe narrative search engine uses Best Match 25 (BM25) and suggests additional query terms from two word embedding models providing English and biomedical words to a human in the loop. We calculated the percentage of relevant narratives retrieved by the system (recall) and the percentage of retrieved narratives relevant to the search (precision) on an evaluation dataset including narratives from VigiBase, the World Health Organization global database of adverse event reports for medicines and vaccines. Exact-match search and BM25 search with the Relevance Model (RM3), an alternative way to expand queries, were used as comparators.
resultsThe gold standard included 55/750 narratives labelled as relevant. Our narrative search engine retrieved on average 56.4% of the relevant narratives (recall), which is higher when compared with exact-match search (21.8%), without a significant drop in precision (54.5% to 43.1%). The recall is also higher as compared with RM3 (34.4%).
conclusionsOur study demonstrates that a narrative search engine supported by AI query suggestions can be a viable alternative to an exact-match search and BM25 search with RM3, since it can facilitate the retrieval of additional relevant narratives during signal assessments.
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.