SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Machine learning methods for predicting adverse drug events: A systematic review.
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning methods for predicting adverse drug events: A systematic review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Hyperkalemia risk with finerenone in diabetic kidney disease: a real-world analysis from the FINE-TURK cohort.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Article
- Toward more accurate adverse event attribution in multiple myeloma clinical trials.Blood cancer journal · 2026Review
- Patient-Level Risk Characterization of Drug-Associated Hidradenitis Suppurativa Using Machine Learning.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Predicting adverse drug events (ADEs) in outpatient settings is crucial for improving medication safety, identifying high-risk patients and reducing health-care costs. While traditional methods struggle with the complexity of health-care data, machine learning (ML) models offer improved prediction capabilities; however, their effectiveness in ADE prediction remains unclear. This systematic review evaluated ML algorithms used for this purpose, analysing studies that focussed on outpatient care or utilized large-scale data sources (e.g. electronic health records, administrative claims and spontaneous reporting systems) that primarily represent the outpatient continuum. We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase up to December 2024 to identify studies developing or validating ML models for ADE prediction. Study characteristics, ML methods, ADE types, model performance and risk of bias were assessed using the PROBAST tool. From 59 included studies comprising 191 ML implementations, Logistic regression, Random forest and XGBoost emerged as the most commonly used algorithms. The majority of studies (67.8%) reported area under the curve (AUC), with 85% demonstrating moderate to high performance (AUC > 0.70) for internal validation. However, only 33.9% of studies addressed class imbalance, and merely 18.6% conducted external validation, raising concerns about methodological rigour, particularly in missing data handling and validation procedures. Our findings indicate that ML models, especially ensemble methods, show promise in predicting ADEs, although challenges with class imbalance and limited external validation currently hinder their clinical applicability. Future research should focus on adopting more rigorous methodologies and developing specialized frameworks for ML-based ADE prediction that build upon established pharmacovigilance practices to ensure models are accurate, generalizable, and seamlessly integrated into clinical workflows for ongoing monitoring and improved medication safety.
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.