Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39605909›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2024

Predicting adverse drug event using machine learning based on electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Qiaozhi Hu, Yuxian Chen, Dan Zou, Zhiyao He, Ting Xu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Augmenting Electronic Health Records for Adverse Event Detection.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Applying Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Drug-Related Side Effect: A Policy Brief.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Qiaozhi HuDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Yuxian ChenDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Dan ZouDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Zhiyao HeDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Ting XuDepartment of Pharmacy, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Adverse drug events (ADEs) pose a significant challenge in current clinical practice. Machine learning (ML) has been increasingly used to predict specific ADEs using electronic health record (EHR) data. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the application of ML in predicting specific ADEs based on EHR data. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and IEEE Xplore was conducted to identify relevant articles published from the inception to 20 May 2024. Studies that developed ML models for predicting specific ADEs or ADEs associated with particular drugs were included using EHR data. Results: A total of 59 studies met the inclusion criteria, covering 15 drugs and 15 ADEs. In total, 38 machine learning algorithms were reported, with random forest (RF) being the most frequently used, followed by support vector machine (SVM), eXtreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), decision tree (DT), and light gradient boosting machine (LightGBM). The performance of the ML models was generally strong, with an average area under the curve (AUC) of 76.68% ± 10.73, accuracy of 76.00% ± 11.26, precision of 60.13% ± 24.81, sensitivity of 62.35% ± 20.19, specificity of 75.13% ± 16.60, and an F1 score of 52.60% ± 21.10. The combined sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and AUC from the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve using a random effects model were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.65-0.66), 0.89 (95% CI: 0.89-0.90), 12.11 (95% CI: 8.17-17.95), and 0.8069, respectively. The risk factors associated with different drugs and ADEs varied. Discussion: Future research should focus on improving standardization, conducting multicenter studies that incorporate diverse data types, and evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence predictive models in real-world clinical settings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024565842, identifier CRD42024565842.

Indexed as

adverse drug eventelectronic medical record datamachine learning algorithmprediction modelsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39605909
PMCPMC11600142

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.