Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41346001›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026

Machine learning methods for predicting adverse drug events: A systematic review.

Niaz Chalabianloo, Fatemeh Ahmadi, Mohammad Ali Omrani, Sheikh S Abdullah, Neda Rostamzadeh, Atefeh Jafari, Lujain Izzedin, Kamran Sedig, Flory T Muanda

Abstract readSystematic ReviewReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Niaz ChalabianlooDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Fatemeh AhmadiICES Western, London, Ontario, Canada.
Mohammad Ali OmraniDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6847-0699
Sheikh S AbdullahDepartment of Computer Science, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Neda RostamzadehDepartment of Computer Science, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Atefeh JafariICES Western, London, Ontario, Canada.
Lujain IzzedinDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Kamran SedigDepartment of Computer Science, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Flory T MuandaDepartment of Physiology and Pharmacology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

Mitacs Postdoctoral Award IT46896
6 · The paper itself

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

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsMachine LearningAlgorithmsAmbulatory CareElectronic Health RecordsHumansPharmacovigilanceadverse drug eventsmachine learningoutpatientpharmacovigilancepredictive modellingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41346001
PMCPMC12850620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.