ArticleDrug safety2026
A Large Language Model for Extracting Post-marketing Adverse Drug Events from Clinical Notes in the Electronic Health Record.
Article in Drug safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundClinical notes contain a vast amount of potentially useful information about adverse drug event (ADE) signals that never reach pharmacovigilance databases. Traditional rule-based or sentence-level models often miss subtle causal cues and generate excess false positives.
objectiveTo build a large language model (LLM) pipeline that reads entire electronic health record (EHR) notes, identifies drug-event pairs with a "reasonable possibility" of causation, and infers other important properties of each ADR, such whether the event is "serious" or "unlabeled".
methodsWe adopted a two-pass workflow using model "OpenAI o1": Pass 1 screens each note for ADEs; Pass 2 adds 20 structured fields. A diverse sample of 372 deidentified notes from physicians and pharmacists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), from 31 specialty/setting cells, yielded 191 ADEs. One medical expert reviewed each ADE for validity, seriousness, and label status. Another expert created a gold standard manually curated ADE set on 100 of the 372 ADEs to give us a percent "recall" estimate. A third expert met with the first expert to arrive at a consensus on the validity of LLM ADEs validated by the first expert but not found in the gold standard ADEs, giving us a estimate of "accuracy".
resultsOf 191 ADEs, 180 were true positives (94.2% precision) with 84.1% recall (F1 = 88.9%). Seriousness was correct in 100% and label status in 93.9% of cases. Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) lowest level term (LLT) coding was correct in 92.5% of valid ADEs; errors were mostly non-existent LLTs. Of all valid ADEs, 12.2% met FDA "serious" criteria, 15.0% were unlabeled, and 8.9% were "failure of efficacy." On the first pass, 84.9% of notes contained no ADEs, keeping inference costs to USD $0.18 per note and $0.35 per validated ADE. The model inferred some ADEs not mentioned by physicians, e.g., tacrolimus-associated hypomagnesemia.
conclusionsWhile the LLM evaluated in this study is not perfect, it can transform free-text EHR notes into ADEs with 94% accuracy, and such data, when statistically analyzed in aggregate, can lead to new safety signals of potential drug side effects. Integrated with platforms like Sentinel in the USA, or Darwin EU, in the European Union, this approach could rapidly surface rare, serious, and unlabeled ADEs for further regulatory analysis.
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.