Drug related adverse event assessment in neonates in clinical trials and clinical care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Assessment of drug-related adverse events is essential to fully understand the benefit-risk balance of any drug exposure, weighing efficacy versus safety. This is needed for both drug labeling and clinical decision-making. Assessment is based on seriousness, severity and causality, be it more difficult to apply in neonates. Adverse event detection or prevention in the neonatal clinical setting is also more complicated because of polypharmacy, and off-label or unlicensed pharmacotherapy. AREAS COVERED: Tools became available to assess severity and causality of adverse events in neonates recruited in clinical trials. The first version of the Neonatal Adverse Event severity score (NAESS) reduced the inter-observer variability. Causality tools like the Naranjo score were also tailored to neonates. These tools are also instrumental to support proactive pharmacovigilance in clinical care, while multidisciplinary care teams and computerized pharmacovigilance using advanced data analysis, like machine learning are emerging approaches to develop effective decision strategies. EXPERT OPINION: All stakeholders involved in development of medicines or its clinical use should be aware of the limitations of the currently available assessment tools. Extension and optimization of these tools, advanced data analysis approaches, and capturing the variability in time-dependent physiology are warranted to improve pharmacovigilance in neonates.
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 | 0.023 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".