ArticlePharmaceutical research2026
Biomedical Large Language Models and Prompt Engineering for Causality Assessment of Individual Case Safety Reports in Pharmacovigilance.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 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
backgroundBiomedical Large Language Models (LLMs) combined with prompt engineering offer domain-specific reasoning, yet their application to individual-level causality assessment remains unexplored. This study evaluated five combinations of biomedical LLMs, prompting strategies, and causality algorithms by comparing their agreement with two human expert evaluators. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsA total of 150 Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs) were analyzed: 140 reports from Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), and 10 myocarditis/pericarditis ICSRs from Vaccine AERS (VAERS). Assessments were conducted using the Naranjo and WHO-UMC algorithms. Biomedical LLMs tested included TinyLlama 1.1B, Medicine LLaMA-3 8B, and MedLLaMA v20, combined with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) or Decomposition prompting. Agreement was measured using Gwet's Agreement Coefficient 1 (AC1) and percentage agreement, alongside performance metrics and qualitative error analysis.
resultsThe Medicine LLaMA-3 8B-Naranjo-CoT combination achieved the highest agreement with human assessors for the final classification of causality (64%). Biomedical LLMs demonstrated low inter-rater agreement on critical items of causality assessment such as identification of listed AE, temporal plausibility, alternative causes, and objective evidence of AEs. Frequent model failures included irrelevant responses.
conclusionsBiomedical LLMs showed improved performance over general purpose models previously tested but remain suboptimal for reliable causality assessment of ICSRs.
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.