Adverse Drug Event Prediction Using Noisy Literature-Derived Knowledge Graphs: Algorithm Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are unintended side effects of drugs that cause substantial clinical and economic burdens globally. Not all ADEs are discovered during clinical trials; therefore, postmarketing surveillance, called pharmacovigilance, is routinely conducted to find unknown ADEs. A wealth of information, which facilitates ADE discovery, lies in the growing body of biomedical literature. Knowledge graphs (KGs) encode information from the literature, where the vertices and the edges represent clinical concepts and their relations, respectively. The scale and unstructured form of the literature necessitates the use of natural language processing (NLP) to automatically create such KGs. Previous studies have demonstrated the utility of such literature-derived KGs in ADE prediction. Through unsupervised learning of the representations (features) of clinical concepts from the KG, which are used in machine learning models, state-of-the-art results for ADE prediction were obtained on benchmark data sets. OBJECTIVE: Due to the use of NLP to infer literature-derived KGs, there is noise in the form of false positive (erroneous) and false negative (absent) nodes and edges. Previous representation learning methods do not account for such inaccuracies in the graph. NLP algorithms can quantify the confidence in their inference of extracted concepts and relations from the literature. Our hypothesis, which motivates this work, is that by using such confidence scores during representation learning, the learned embeddings would yield better features for ADE prediction models. METHODS: We developed methods to use these confidence scores on two well-known representation learning methods-DeepWalk and Translating Embeddings for Modeling Multi-relational Data (TransE)-to develop their weighted versions: Weighted DeepWalk and Weighted TransE. These methods were used to learn representations from a large literature-derived KG, the Semantic MEDLINE Database, which contains more than 93 million clinical relations. They were compared with Embedding of Semantic Predications, which, to our knowledge, is the best reported representation learning method using the Semantic MEDLINE Database with state-of-the-art results for ADE prediction. Representations learned from different methods were used (separately) as features of drugs and diseases to build classification models for ADE prediction using benchmark data sets. The methods were compared rigorously over multiple cross-validation settings. RESULTS: -score and 8.4% in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value, thus advancing the state of the art in ADE prediction from literature-derived KGs. CONCLUSIONS: Our classification models can be used to aid pharmacovigilance teams in detecting potentially new ADEs. Our experiments demonstrate the importance of modeling inaccuracies in the inferred KGs for representation learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".