ArticleFrontiers in drug safety and regulation2024
Assessing the performance of large language models in literature screening for pharmacovigilance: a comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in drug safety and regulation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying machine learning to pharmacovigilance data: A proof-of-concept study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Large Language Models in Adverse Drug Reaction Detection and Pharmacovigilance: A Systematic Review of Current Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Intelligent Automation Improved Efficiency in Pharmacovigilance Safety Signal Assessment.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Performance of Large Language Models in Answering Healthcare Delivery Questions: A Quantitative Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Applications of artificial intelligence for real-world evidence generation: a protocol for a living scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Confident but unsupported: auditing large language models against supplied evidence boundaries in drug-induced liver injury assessment.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Applications of Federated Large Language Model for Adverse Drug Reactions Prediction: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Semantic Search of FDA Guidance Documents Using Generative AI.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Article
- Orchestrating generative AI in pharmacovigilance: predicting and preempting the unpredictable.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Review
- Can large language models detect drug-drug interactions leading to adverse drug reactions?Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacovigilance plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety of pharmaceutical products. It involves the systematic monitoring of adverse events and the detection of potential safety concerns related to drugs. Manual literature screening for pharmacovigilance related articles is a labor-intensive and time-consuming task, requiring streamlined solutions to cope with the continuous growth of literature. The primary objective of this study is to assess the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in automating literature screening for pharmacovigilance, aiming to enhance the process by identifying relevant articles more effectively. This study represents a novel application of LLMs including OpenAI's GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Anthropic's Claude2, in the field of pharmacovigilance, evaluating their ability to categorize medical publications as relevant or irrelevant for safety signal reviews. Our analysis encompassed N-shot learning, chain-of-thought reasoning, and evaluating metrics, with a focus on factors impacting accuracy. The findings highlight the promising potential of LLMs in literature screening, achieving a reproducibility of 93%, sensitivity of 97%, and specificity of 67% showcasing notable strengths in terms of reproducibility and sensitivity, although with moderate specificity. Notably, performance improved when models were provided examples consisting of abstracts, labels, and corresponding reasoning explanations. Moreover, our exploration identified several potential contributing factors influencing prediction outcomes. These factors encompassed the choice of key words and prompts, the balance of the examples, and variations in reasoning explanations. By configuring advanced LLMs for efficient screening of extensive literature databases, this study underscores the transformative potential of these models in drug safety monitoring. Furthermore, these insights gained from this study can inform the development of automated systems for pharmacovigilance, contributing to the ongoing efforts to ensure the safety and efficacy of pharmacovigilance products.
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.