ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Applying machine learning to pharmacovigilance data: A proof-of-concept study.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applying machine learning to pharmacovigilance data: A proof-of-concept study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Patient-Level Risk Characterization of Drug-Associated Hidradenitis Suppurativa Using Machine Learning.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
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
aimMachine learning (ML) applications in pharmacovigilance remain limited and underexplored. Using data from the French National pharmacovigilance database (FNPV), this proof-of-concept study aimed to assess the feasibility of using a ML algorithm-eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost)-combined with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis, to classify a well-defined drug-adverse reaction pair (warfarin-associated gastrointestinal bleeding) and identify risk factors for reporting this adverse reaction.
methodsWe extracted individual case safety reports (ICSRs) involving warfarin from the FNPV. Following data preprocessing, the dataset was randomly split into a training set (75%) and an independent test set (25%). The XGBoost algorithm was trained to classify reports as either gastrointestinal bleeding or non-gastrointestinal bleeding adverse reactions. Model performance was assessed on the test set using multiple metrics: accuracy, recall, precision, F1-score and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC). Feature importance and directional effects were interpreted using SHAP values.
resultsA total of 2025 ICSRs involving warfarin were extracted from the FNPV. After preprocessing, 1045 ICSRs were retained. On the test set, the XGBoost model demonstrated an accuracy of 0.68, recall of 0.80, precision of 0.68, F1-score of 0.74 and an AUC-ROC of 0.716. SHAP analysis revealed the four most influential features in predicting gastrointestinal bleeding reporting: age, gastrointestinal bleeding risk, antiplatelet and history of renal dysfunction.
conclusionWe demonstrated the feasibility of using an XGBoost algorithm combined with SHAP analysis to pharmacovigilance data for the classification of adverse drug reactions and identify predictive features of reporting, following post hoc model interpretation by pharmacologists.
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.