A systematic review of validated methods for identifying hypersensitivity reactions other than anaphylaxis (fever, rash, and lymphadenopathy), using administrative and claims data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Food and Drug Administration's Mini-Sentinel pilot program aims to conduct active surveillance to refine safety signals that emerge for marketed medical products. A key facet of this surveillance is to develop and understand the validity of algorithms for identifying health outcomes of interest from administrative and claims data. This article summarizes the process and findings of the algorithm review of hypersensitivity reactions. METHODS: PubMed and Iowa Drug Information Service searches were conducted to identify citations applicable to the hypersensitivity reactions of health outcomes of interest. Level 1 abstract reviews and Level 2 full-text reviews were conducted to find articles using administrative and claims data to identify hypersensitivity reactions and including validation estimates of the coding algorithms. RESULTS: We identified five studies that provided validated hypersensitivity-reaction algorithms. Algorithm positive predictive values (PPVs) for various definitions of hypersensitivity reactions ranged from 3% to 95%. PPVs were high (i.e. 90%-95%) when both exposures and diagnoses were very specific. PPV generally decreased when the definition of hypersensitivity was expanded, except in one study that used data mining methodology for algorithm development. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of coding algorithms to identify hypersensitivity reactions varied, with decreasing performance occurring with expanded outcome definitions. This examination of hypersensitivity-reaction coding algorithms provides an example of surveillance bias resulting from outcome definitions that include mild cases. Data mining may provide tools for algorithm development for hypersensitivity and other health outcomes. Research needs to be conducted on designing validation studies to test hypersensitivity-reaction algorithms and estimating their predictive power, sensitivity, and specificity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".