ReviewTherapeutic advances in drug safety2025
How LLMs can advance safety case intake-points to consider and insights from a proof of concept.
Review in Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Pharmacovigilance: Guiding Principles from the CIOMS Working Group XIV.Drug safety · 2026Review
- How is AI developing in pharmacovigilance?Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As per Good Pharmacovigilance Practices, pharmaceutical companies must act on potential adverse reactions to drugs. With significant increases in the number of case reports in recent years, they face pressure to raise the efficiency of their processes while maintaining data integrity and patient safety. The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in safety case intake provides potential to advance processes without compromising quality. In this perspective review, we highlight the potential benefits of LLMs in case intake workflows, and points to consider relating to the current research landscape, inspired by our proof-of-concept (PoC) study. Benefits include raising the consistency of data extraction, reducing bias, and enhancing efficiency. We reflect on challenges in realizing the potential of this new technology from a practical industry perspective, namely (a) measuring the Return on Investment, (b) early involvement of subject matter experts, (c) handling unclear regulatory expectations, (d) system integration, and (e) organizational readiness. We illustrate the potential and its challenges through the lens of our PoC's insights as well as through insights from published literature, which allowed us to estimate an efficiency gain from a business process perspective for data extraction and initial case report, demonstrating the technology's potential and practical applicability in real-world scenarios.
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.