MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199673018 · doi:10.2196/32730

Adverse Drug Event Prediction Using Noisy Literature-Derived Knowledge Graphs: Algorithm Development and Validation

2021· article· en· W3199673018 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soham Dasgupta, Aishwarya Jayagopal, Abel Lim Jun Hong, Ragunathan Mariappan, Vaibhav Rajan

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceInferenceNatural language processingRepresentation (politics)PharmacovigilanceNamed-entity recognitionBenchmark (surveying)GraphTheoretical computer scienceTask (project management)MedicineAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsFrench-language works237,207