ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Artificial intelligence enabled audio-to-text transcription and translation for streamlined pharmacovigilance data collection and adverse drug reaction reporting.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting in pharmacovigilance is critical for patient safety but often limited by resource constraints and manual inefficiencies. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to address these challenges by streamlining the reporting process. Aims: The aim of the study was to assess the performance of an AI-enabled system for audio-to-text transcription, translation, ADR form completion, and causality assessment based on the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre scale. Settings and Design: A computational comparative, cross-sectional study involving healthcare professionals and patients to evaluate the AI system's functionality in a real-world pharmacovigilance setting. Methodology: A hundred participants (50 healthcare professionals and 50 patients) provided audio-recorded ADR reports. These recordings were processed through the AI system to generate transcriptions, translations, and ADR forms. The system's performance was assessed using transcription metrics (word error rate [WER], character error rate [CER], Sentence Error Rate [SER]), translation metrics (bilingual evaluation understudy [BLEU] score, Translation Edit Rate [TER]), and ADR form accuracy. Causality assessments by the AI were compared against expert evaluations. Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive and analytical statistics (unpaired Results: The AI system demonstrated high accuracy in transcription (WER <0.05, CER <0.04, and SER <0.35) and translation (BLEU >0.85 and TER <0.05). ADR form completion achieved near-perfect accuracy with minor discrepancies. Causality assessments were consistent across healthcare professional and patient data ( Conclusions: The AI-enabled system effectively streamlined ADR reporting, ensuring accuracy in transcription, translation, and causality assessment while maintaining consistency across groups. Its integration into pharmacovigilance processes can reduce workloads, enhance reporting rates, and improve global health outcomes.
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.