ArticlePloS one2026
Developing a natural language processing system using transformer-based models for adverse drug event detection in electronic health records.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Large Language Models for Adverse Drug Events: A Clinical Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a transformer-based natural language processing (NLP) system for detecting adverse drug events (ADEs) from clinical notes in electronic health records (EHRs). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe fine-tuned BERT Short-Formers and Clinical-Longformer using the processed dataset from the 2018 National NLP Clinical Challenges (n2c2) shared task Track 2. Two data processing methods, window-based and split-based approaches, were compared to identify the optimal processing method. Model generalizability was evaluated on a dataset extracted from Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) EHRs.
resultsOn the n2c2 dataset, the best 5-fold cross-validation AUPRC, micro F1, and macro F1 scores were 0.840 (Clinical-Longformer, 4-chunk split), 0.965 (BioBERT, 15-word window), and 0.852 (Clinical-Longformer, 10-chunk split). On the VUMC dataset, the best AUPRC, micro F1, and macro F1 scores were 0.536 (Clinical-Longformer, 6-chunk split), 0.966 (BERT-base-uncased, 6-chunk split), and 0.762 (Clinical-Longformer, 4-chunk split). DISCUSSION: Transformer-based models demonstrated strong performance for ADE detection, with split-based processing generally outperforming window-based methods. Clinical-Longformer combined with a practical split-based approach showed promise for real-world implementation. Beyond token limits, chunk size substantially influenced model performance, even when text length remained within limits.
conclusionOur findings provide practical guidance for developing transformer-based ADE detection systems from clinical notes. The selection of both text preprocessing strategies and model architectures should be guided by note characteristics and practical considerations such as annotation burden.
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.