Application of natural language processing techniques to identify off-label drug usage from various online health communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Outcomes mentioned on online health communities (OHCs) by patients can serve as a source of evidence for off-label drug usage evaluation, but identifying these outcomes manually is tedious work. We have built a natural language processing model to identify off-label usage of drugs mentioned in these patient posts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single patient posts from 4 major OHCs were considered for this study. A text classification model was built to classify the posts as either relevant or not relevant based on patient experience. The relevant posts were passed through a spelling correction tool, CSpell, and then medications and indications from these posts were identified using cTAKES (clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System), a named entity recognition tool. Drug and indication pairs were identified using a dependency parser. Finally, if the paired indication was not mentioned on the label of the drug approved by U.S. Food and Drug Administration, it was tagged as off-label use of that drug. RESULTS: Using this algorithm, we identified 289 off-label indications, achieving a recall of 76%. CONCLUSIONS: The method designed in this study identifies and extracts the semantic relationship between drugs and indications from demotic posts in OHCs. The results demonstrate the feasibility of using natural language processing techniques in identifying off-label drug usage across online health forums for a variety of drugs. Understanding patients' off-label use of drugs may be able to help manufacturers innovate to better address patients' needs and assist doctors' prescribing decisions.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".