ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Portability of a text mining algorithm for detecting adverse drug reactions in electronic health records across diverse patient groups in two Dutch hospitals.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) pose a significant challenge in healthcare. While structured documentation of ADRs in electronic health records (EHRs) enables automated alerting, many ADRs are recorded as unstructured free-text, limiting detection. Text mining (TM) shows potential for extracting clinically relevant data from unstructured text. However, the portability of TM algorithms across different institutions and departments remains uncertain, due to variations in EHR structures and documentation practices. To enhance these general-purpose algorithms, evaluating their portability is essential for ensuring effective performance across diverse clinical settings. To evaluate the portability of a previously developed TM-based ADR identification algorithm by assessing its performance using EHRs from two different departments in two different hospitals. EHR free-text data from 62 hospitalized patients in the geriatric and orthopedic departments of two Dutch teaching hospitals were reviewed for ADRs via manual review and the TM algorithm. Performance was evaluated using F-score, sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV), with comparisons across hospitals and departments. Manual review identified 359 unique ADRs. The TM algorithm detected 534 potential ADRs (pADRs), 286 of which overlapped with manual review, yielding an F-score of 0.64, sensitivity of 80% and PPV of 54%. Performance was consistent across hospitals and departments. Notably, 26 pADRs identified by the algorithm were clinically relevant yet missed in manual review. This study demonstrates portability of the TM algorithm by identifying pADRs across different hospitals and departments without adaptations. These findings support its broader implementation potential for ADR detection in diverse healthcare settings.
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.