Can social media data lead to earlier detection of drug‐related adverse events?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: ) in social media (AskaPatient.com) versus the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: We identified clinically important AEs associated with atorvastatin (muscle pain) and sibutramine (cardiovascular AEs), compared their patterns in social media postings versus FAERS and used Granger causality tests to assess whether social media postings were useful in forecasting FAERS reports. RESULTS: We analyzed 998 and 270 social media postings between 2001 and 2014, 69 003 and 7383 FAERS reports between 1997 and 2014 for atorvastatin and sibutramine, respectively. Social media reporters were younger (atorvastatin: 53.9 vs. 64.0 years, p < 0.001; sibutramine: 36.8 vs. 43.8 years, p < 0.001). Social media reviews contained fewer serious AEs (atorvastatin, pain: 2.5% vs. 38.2%; sibutramine, cardiovascular issues: 7.9% vs. 63.0%; p < 0.001 for both) and concentrated on fewer types of AEs (proportion comprising the top 20 AEs: atorvastatin, 88.7% vs. 55.4%; sibutramine, 86.3% vs. 65.4%) compared with FAERS. While social media sibutramine reviews mentioning cardiac issues helped predict those in FAERS 11 months later (p < 0.001), social media atorvastatin reviews did not help predict FAERS reports. CONCLUSIONS: Social media AE reporters were younger and focused on less-serious and fewer types of AEs than FAERS reporters. The potential for social media to provide earlier indications of AEs compared with FAERS is uncertain. Our findings highlight some of the promises and limitations of online social media versus conventional pharmacovigilance sources and the need for careful interpretation of the results. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".