Observational studyClinical drug investigation2026
ContraIndicator: A Natural Language Processing-Based Approach to Potential Drug-Drug Interaction Detection in Pediatric Intensive Care.
Observational study in Clinical drug investigation, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe intricate nature of pediatric patients' physiology and the frequent administration of multiple medications in pediatric intensive care units expose hospitalized patients to potential drug-drug interactions. Therefore, this study aimed to examine and characterize clinically relevant drug-drug interactions in pediatric patients admitted to intensive care units, leveraging artificial intelligence to enhance their identification and management.
methodsPrescription data from pediatric intensive care unit admissions were analyzed using ContraIndicator, a natural language processing-based framework developed for the identification of potential drug-drug interactions. Medication information extracted from prescription records was evaluated against the DDInter database, and its clinical relevance was determined using the severity ratings of the database (major, moderate, and minor). Using univariate and multivariate logistic regression, the associations between severity and age, as well as between severity and the number of prescribed medications, were investigated.
resultsThe examination of 8010 prescriptions for 899 hospitalized patients identified 3884 potential drug-drug interactions. The most frequent interacting drug pairs were midazolam + fluconazole, fluconazole + fentanyl, fentanyl + dexamethasone, and vancomycin + piperacillin. Among the 49.6% (446) of pediatric patients who had at least one interaction (major, moderate, or minor), 38.8% (173) had a major potential drug-drug interaction. In this investigation, a higher number of prescribed drugs was significantly linked with a higher incidence of potential drug-drug interactions (odds ratio: 12.79; 95% confidence interval: 8.26-20.6; p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe study suggests that potential drug-drug interactions are frequent in pediatric intensive care units. The majority of these interactions were moderate, followed by major severity. There is a statistically significant association between the quantity of drugs provided and the prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions. The findings of this study could aid in planning and executing future studies, as well as in monitoring and preventing potential drug-drug interactions in patients receiving intensive care. This study introduces ContraIndicator, a graphical user interface that presents empirical findings and promotes awareness regarding potential drug-drug interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41686358What 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.