MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399191423 · doi:10.2196/59167

The Value of Social Media Analysis for Adverse Events Detection and Pharmacovigilance: Scoping Review

2024· article· en· W4399191423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Su Golder, Karen O’Connor, Yunwen Wang, Ari Z Klein, Graciela Gonzalez‐Hernandez

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPharmacovigilanceSocial mediaValue (mathematics)Data scienceInternet privacyMedicineComputer scienceAdverse effectWorld Wide WebPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events pose an enormous public health burden, leading to hospitalization, disability, and death. Even the adverse events (AEs) categorized as nonserious can severely impact on patient's quality of life, adherence, and persistence. Monitoring medication safety is challenging. Web-based patient reports on social media may be a useful supplementary source of real-world data. Despite the growth of sophisticated techniques for identifying AEs using social media data, a consensus has not been reached as to the value of social media in relation to more traditional data sources. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate and characterize the utility of social media analysis in adverse drug event detection and pharmacovigilance as compared with other data sources (such as spontaneous reporting systems and the clinical literature). METHODS: In this scoping review, we searched 11 bibliographical databases and Google Scholar, followed by handsearching and forward and backward citation searching. Each record was screened by 2 independent reviewers at both the title and abstract stage and the full-text screening stage. Studies were included if they used any type of social media (such as Twitter or patient forums) to detect AEs associated with any drug medication and compared the results ascertained from social media to any other data source. Study information was collated using a piloted data extraction sheet. Data were extracted on the AEs and drugs searched for and included; the methods used (such as machine learning); social media data source; volume of data analyzed; limitations of the methodology; availability of data and code; comparison data source and comparison methods; results, including the volume of AEs, and how the AEs found compared with other data sources in their seriousness, frequencies, and expectedness or novelty (new vs known knowledge); and conclusions. RESULTS: Of the 6538 unique records screened, 73 publications representing 60 studies with a wide variety of extraction methods met our inclusion criteria. The most common social media platforms used were Twitter and online health forums. The most common comparator data source was spontaneous reporting systems, although other comparisons were also made, such as with scientific literature and product labels. Although similar patterns of AE reporting tended to be identified, the frequencies were lower in social media. Social media data were found to be useful in identifying new or unexpected AEs and in identifying AEs in a timelier manner. CONCLUSIONS: There is a large body of research comparing AEs from social media to other sources. Most studies advocate the use of social media as an adjunct to traditional data sources. Some studies also indicate the value of social media in understanding patient perspectives such as the impact of AEs, which could be better explored. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/47068.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.222
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.222
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0480.033
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.367 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsFrench-language works237,207