Crowdsourcing Adverse Events Associated With Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Calcitonin Gene–Related Peptide Signaling for Migraine Prevention: Natural Language Processing Analysis of Social Media
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials demonstrate the efficacy and tolerability of medications targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling for migraine prevention. However, these trials may not accurately reflect the real-world experiences of more diverse and heterogeneous patient populations, who often have higher disease burden and more comorbidities. Therefore, postmarketing safety surveillance is warranted. Regulatory organizations encourage marketing authorization holders to screen digital media for suspected adverse reactions, applying the same requirements as for spontaneous reports. Real-world data from social media platforms constitute a potential venue to capture diverse patient experiences and help detect treatment-related adverse events. However, while social media holds promise for this purpose, its use in pharmacovigilance is still in its early stages. Computational linguistics, which involves the automatic manipulation and quantitative analysis of oral or written language, offers a potential method for exploring this content. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize adverse events related to monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP signaling on Reddit, a large online social media forum, by using computational linguistics. METHODS: We examined differences in word frequencies from medication-related posts on the Reddit subforum r/Migraine over a 10-year period (2010-2020) using computational linguistics. The study had 2 phases: a validation phase and an application phase. In the validation phase, we compared posts about propranolol and topiramate, as well as posts about each medication against randomly selected posts, to identify known and expected adverse events. In the application phase, we analyzed posts discussing 2 monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP signaling-erenumab and fremanezumab-to identify potential adverse events for these medications. RESULTS: From 22,467 Reddit r/Migraine posts, we extracted 402 (2%) propranolol posts, 1423 (6.33%) topiramate posts, 468 (2.08%) erenumab posts, and 73 (0.32%) fremanezumab posts. Comparing topiramate against propranolol identified several expected adverse events, for example, "appetite," "weight," "taste," "foggy," "forgetful," and "dizziness." Comparing erenumab against a random selection of terms identified "constipation" as a recurring keyword. Comparing erenumab against fremanezumab identified "constipation," "depression," "vomiting," and "muscle" as keywords. No adverse events were identified for fremanezumab. CONCLUSIONS: The validation phase of our study accurately identified common adverse events for oral migraine preventive medications. For example, typical adverse events such as "appetite" and "dizziness" were mentioned in posts about topiramate. When we applied this methodology to monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor-fremanezumab and erenumab, respectively-we found no definite adverse events for fremanezumab. However, notable flagged words for erenumab included "constipation," "depression," and "vomiting." In conclusion, computational linguistics applied to social media may help identify potential adverse events for novel therapeutics. While social media data show promise for pharmacovigilance, further work is needed to improve its reliability and usability.
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 | 0,002 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».