Incorporating Unstructured Patient Narratives and Health Insurance Claims Data in Pharmacovigilance: Natural Language Processing Analysis of Patient-Generated Texts About Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gaining insights that cannot be obtained from health care databases from patients has become an important topic in pharmacovigilance. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to demonstrate a use case, in which patient-generated data were incorporated in pharmacovigilance, to understand the epidemiology and burden of illness in Japanese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. METHODS: We used data on systemic lupus erythematosus, an autoimmune disease that substantially impairs quality of life, from 2 independent data sets. To understand the disease's epidemiology, we analyzed a Japanese health insurance claims database. To understand the disease's burden, we analyzed text data collected from Japanese disease blogs (tōbyōki) written by patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Natural language processing was applied to these texts to identify frequent patient-level complaints, and term frequency-inverse document frequency was used to explore patient burden during treatment. We explored health-related quality of life based on patient descriptions. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 4694 and 635 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus in the health insurance claims database and tōbyōki blogs, respectively. Based on health insurance claims data, the prevalence of systemic lupus erythematosus is 107.70 per 100,000 persons. Tōbyōki text data analysis showed that pain-related words (eg, pain, severe pain, arthralgia) became more important after starting treatment. We also found an increase in patients' references to mobility and self-care over time, which indicated increased attention to physical disability due to disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: A classical medical database represents only a part of a patient's entire treatment experience, and analysis using solely such a database cannot represent patient-level symptoms or patient concerns about treatments. This study showed that analysis of tōbyōki blogs can provide added information on patient-level details, advancing patient-centric pharmacovigilance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".