Methods for identifying culprit drugs in cutaneous drug eruptions: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Cutaneous drug eruptions are a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and cost to the healthcare system. Identifying the culprit drug is essential; however, despite numerous methods being published, there are no consensus guidelines. Objectives Conduct a scoping review to identify all published methods of culprit drug identification for cutaneous drug eruptions, compare the methods, and generate hypotheses for future causality assessment studies. Eligibility criteria Peer-reviewed publications involving culprit drug identification methods. Sources of evidence Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Charting methods Registered PRISMA-ScR format protocol on Open Science Forum. Results In total, 135 publications were included comprising 656,635 adverse drug events, most of which were cutaneous. There were 54 methods of culprit drug identification published, categorized as algorithms, probabilistic approaches, and expert judgment. Algorithms had higher sensitivity and positive predictive value, but lower specificity and negative predictive value. Probabilistic approaches had lower sensitivity and positive predictive value, but higher specificity and negative predictive value. Expert judgment was subjective, less reproducible, but the most frequently used to validate other methods. Studies suggest that greater accuracy may be achieved by specifically assessing cutaneous drug eruptions and using combinations of causality assessment categories. Conclusions Culprit drug identification for adverse drug reactions remains a challenge. Many methods have been published, but there are no consensus guidelines. Using causality assessment methods specifically for cutaneous drug eruptions and combining aspects of the different causality assessment categories may improve efficacy. Further studies are needed to validate this hypothesis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".