ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Safety Monitoring of High-Risk Antibiotics Using Artificial Intelligence: A Narrative Review with Focus on Real-World Evidence.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-risk antibiotics remain indispensable in contemporary infectious diseases practice, yet they account for a disproportionate share of preventable toxicity, therapeutic drug monitoring complexity, and antimicrobial stewardship workload. Vancomycin, aminoglycosides, colistin, linezolid, daptomycin, selected beta-lactams, and amphotericin B are particularly challenging because clinically relevant exposure-toxicity relationships coexist with marked inter-patient variability and fragmented post-marketing safety surveillance. Artificial intelligence and real-world evidence are increasingly proposed as complementary approaches to address these limitations, although the evidence base remains heterogeneous and predominantly retrospective. This narrative review synthesises literature from PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science published between 2019 and April 2026, supplemented by citation chaining and regulatory pharmacovigilance resources, with studies prioritised by implementation maturity, external validation status, and stewardship relevance. Current evidence indicates that artificial intelligence may improve safety monitoring when embedded within clinically rich data environments: machine learning models show promising discrimination for nephrotoxicity and haematological toxicity in vancomycin, colistin, and linezolid therapy; natural language processing may enhance adverse drug event extraction from clinical text; and Bayesian, model-informed tools already demonstrate clinical utility in vancomycin and aminoglycoside dosing. However, prospective implementation data remain sparse, external validation is uncommon, and evidence that these tools improve real-world antibiotic safety outcomes, as opposed to predictive discrimination alone, remains limited. Artificial intelligence-enabled antibiotic safety monitoring is therefore transitioning from methodological promise towards conditional clinical utility rather than proven benefit. Near-term value is most likely to arise from integration with therapeutic drug monitoring, antimicrobial stewardship, and pharmacology-led clinical review rather than autonomous decision-making, with clinical pharmacologists and stewardship teams leading local implementation, validation, and governance of these tools.
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.