Transforming Pharmacovigilance With Pharmacogenomics: Toward Personalized Risk Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacovigilance is a critical component of medication safety. Despite rigorous evaluation of new drugs during clinical trials, some adverse effects might only be identified once pharmaceuticals are used by a larger population for a longer duration. Adverse drug reactions cause negative healthcare outcomes and in severe cases, may lead to hospital admissions, delayed hospital discharges, or deaths. Adverse event reports submitted to pharmacovigilance programs by healthcare professionals and consumers are a key source of information regarding previously unrecognized detrimental effects. Pharmacogenetic markers that indicate how particular genes impact an individual's response to medication can help explain some idiosyncratic adverse reactions. Incorporating pharmacogenomic guidance in prescribing is proven to decrease the incidence of adverse reactions and improve clinical outcomes. However, this information is not yet routinely included in incident reports. In this era of precision medicine, when prescribing can be tailored to the individual, pharmacogenomic test results yield valuable data that can enhance both individual and population health. Furthermore, advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods facilitate analysis of complex genetic data, revealing insights not previously available. This white paper outlines current pharmacovigilance and pharmacogenomic practices and recommends that pharmacovigilance programs include pharmacogenomics as a crucial data point in their investigations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".