The Value of Social Media Analysis for Adverse Events Detection and Pharmacovigilance: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events pose an enormous public health burden, leading to hospitalization, disability, and death. Even the adverse events (AEs) categorized as nonserious can severely impact on patient's quality of life, adherence, and persistence. Monitoring medication safety is challenging. Web-based patient reports on social media may be a useful supplementary source of real-world data. Despite the growth of sophisticated techniques for identifying AEs using social media data, a consensus has not been reached as to the value of social media in relation to more traditional data sources. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate and characterize the utility of social media analysis in adverse drug event detection and pharmacovigilance as compared with other data sources (such as spontaneous reporting systems and the clinical literature). METHODS: In this scoping review, we searched 11 bibliographical databases and Google Scholar, followed by handsearching and forward and backward citation searching. Each record was screened by 2 independent reviewers at both the title and abstract stage and the full-text screening stage. Studies were included if they used any type of social media (such as Twitter or patient forums) to detect AEs associated with any drug medication and compared the results ascertained from social media to any other data source. Study information was collated using a piloted data extraction sheet. Data were extracted on the AEs and drugs searched for and included; the methods used (such as machine learning); social media data source; volume of data analyzed; limitations of the methodology; availability of data and code; comparison data source and comparison methods; results, including the volume of AEs, and how the AEs found compared with other data sources in their seriousness, frequencies, and expectedness or novelty (new vs known knowledge); and conclusions. RESULTS: Of the 6538 unique records screened, 73 publications representing 60 studies with a wide variety of extraction methods met our inclusion criteria. The most common social media platforms used were Twitter and online health forums. The most common comparator data source was spontaneous reporting systems, although other comparisons were also made, such as with scientific literature and product labels. Although similar patterns of AE reporting tended to be identified, the frequencies were lower in social media. Social media data were found to be useful in identifying new or unexpected AEs and in identifying AEs in a timelier manner. CONCLUSIONS: There is a large body of research comparing AEs from social media to other sources. Most studies advocate the use of social media as an adjunct to traditional data sources. Some studies also indicate the value of social media in understanding patient perspectives such as the impact of AEs, which could be better explored. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/47068.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,043 | 0,222 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,048 | 0,033 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».