MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408307058 · doi:10.2196/69663

Identifying Adverse Events in Outpatients With Prostate Cancer Using Pharmaceutical Care Records in Community Pharmacies: Application of Named Entity Recognition

2025· article· en· W4408307058 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuki Yanagisawa, Satoshi Watabe, Sakura Yokoyama, K Sayama, Hayato Kizaki, Masami Tsuchiya, Shungo Imai, Mitsuhiro Someya, Ryoo Taniguchi, Shuntaro Yada, Eiji Aramaki, Satoko Hori

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacyProstate cancerPharmaceutical careAdverse effectMedical prescriptionPharmacovigilanceMedical recordFamily medicinePharmacologyCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Androgen receptor axis-targeting reagents (ARATs) have become key drugs for patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). ARATs are taken long term in outpatient settings, and effective adverse event (AE) monitoring can help prolong treatment duration for patients with CRPC. Despite the importance of monitoring, few studies have identified which AEs can be captured and assessed in community pharmacies, where pharmacists in Japan dispense medications, provide counseling, and monitor potential AEs for outpatients prescribed ARATs. Therefore, we anticipated that a named entity recognition (NER) system might be used to extract AEs recorded in pharmaceutical care records generated by community pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether an NER system can effectively and systematically identify AEs in outpatients undergoing ARAT therapy by reviewing pharmaceutical care records generated by community pharmacists, focusing on assessment notes, which often contain detailed records of AEs. Additionally, the study sought to determine whether outpatient pharmacotherapy monitoring can be enhanced by using NER to systematically collect AEs from pharmaceutical care records. METHODS: We used an NER system based on the widely used Japanese medical term extraction system MedNER-CR-JA, which uses Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT). To evaluate its performance for pharmaceutical care records by community pharmacists, the NER system was first applied to 1008 assessment notes in records related to anticancer drug prescriptions. Three pharmaceutically proficient researchers compared the results with the annotated notes assigned symptom tags according to annotation guidelines and evaluated the performance of the NER system on the assessment notes in the pharmaceutical care records. The system was then applied to 2193 assessment notes for patients prescribed ARATs. RESULTS: -score for exact matches of all symptom tags between the NER system and annotators was 0.72, confirming the NER system has sufficient performance for application to pharmaceutical care records. The NER system automatically assigned 1900 symptom tags for the 2193 assessment notes from patients prescribed ARATs; 623 tags (32.8%) were positive symptom tags (symptoms present), while 1067 tags (56.2%) were negative symptom tags (symptoms absent). Positive symptom tags included ARAT-related AEs such as "pain," "skin disorders," "fatigue," and "gastrointestinal symptoms." Many other symptoms were classified as serious AEs. Furthermore, differences in symptom tag profiles reflecting pharmacists' AE monitoring were observed between androgen synthesis inhibition and androgen receptor signaling inhibition. CONCLUSIONS: The NER system successfully extracted AEs from pharmaceutical care records of patients prescribed ARATs, demonstrating its potential to systematically track the presence and absence of AEs in outpatients. Based on the analysis of a large volume of pharmaceutical medical records using the NER system, community pharmacists not only detect potential AEs but also actively monitor the absence of severe AEs, offering valuable insights for the continuous improvement of patient safety management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207