ArticleScientific reports2026
Classification of health product defect reports by deep learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality defects in substandard medicines represent a threat to public health. Rapid and accurate identification of these defects is critical to prioritise the cases and implement regulatory measures. However, the development of surveillance systems to classify reports of health product defects remains a largely unmet need in medicine safety monitoring. The objective of this study is to implement an AI system to support the classification and prioritization of health product defect reports. To develop a deep learning system for the classification of health product defect reports, 13,830 reports collected between 2010 and 2021 were used. The reports were labelled by a panel of pharmacovigilance experts into 21 categories following standardised medical terminology. Our system harnesses state-of-the-art language algorithms that extract rich textual features to classify the reports. The functionality of the system is enhanced with explainable features that provide interpretability and actionable insights to decision-makers. Our system achieves top-1, top-2, and top-3 accuracies of 86%, 93%, and 96%, respectively. There is a statistically significant positive correlation between sample size and top-1 (Pearson’s r: 0.643; 95% CI: [0.2921, 0.8411]; p-value: 0.0016), top-2 (Pearson’s r: 0.735; 95% CI: [0.4439, 0.8856]; p-value: 0.0001), and top-3 (Pearson’s r: 0.635; 95% CI: [0.2808, 0.8374]; p-value: 0.0020) performance metrics. Likewise, model accuracy is positively correlated with confidence scores (Pearson’s r: 0.927; 95% CI: [0.8253, 0.9703]; p-value < 0.00001). A feature analysis reveals that the most influential words in model decision are conceptually and semantically related to their respective product defect categories. Our model has been validated with prospective data. The developed classification system allows for standardisation in case triage, and potentially improves case prioritisation and processing workflows, leading to more prompt response for quality defects with high public health impact.
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.