SynthesisFrontiers in drug safety and regulation2026
Systematic review of AI-based models in pharmacoepidemiology for adverse drug event prediction and detection.
Synthesis in Frontiers in drug safety and regulation, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) has increasingly been applied in pharmacoepidemiology, yet the methodological landscape of adverse drug event (ADE) prediction remains heterogeneous and insufficiently mapped. Methods: This systematic review aimed to characterize contemporary AI-based approaches used to detect or predict ADEs in real-world clinical data. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD420251159394), 281 records were screened and 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: All included studies relied primarily on structured electronic health records (EHRs) or administrative claims, while only a minority incorporated natural language processing (NLP) components, and none used spontaneous reporting systems as the primary analytic datasets. Tree-based ensemble models (e.g., Random Forests, XGBoost) and regularized regression were the most commonly adopted algorithms, whereas deep learning architectures appeared less frequently and typically required temporal or representation-based inputs. Through studies, external or temporal validation was rarely performed and explainability methods were inconsistently applied, limiting generalizability. No standardized benchmarks were identified, and reporting practices varied substantially. Discussion: Future work should emphasize rigorous validation, transparent model reporting, and the careful integration of NLP and explainability frameworks to support clinically reliable and scalable pharmacoepidemiological applications.
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.