Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39918677›Full record

ArticleDrug safety2025

Network Analysis and Machine Learning for Signal Detection and Prioritization Using Electronic Healthcare Records and Administrative Databases: A Proof of Concept in Drug-Induced Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Maria Antonietta Barbieri, Andrea Abate, Olivér M Balogh, Mátyás Pétervári, Péter Ferdinandy, Bence Ágg, Vera Battini, Marianna Cocco, Andrea Rossi, Carla Carnovale and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug safety, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

13 authors.

Maria Antonietta BarbieriDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, 98125, Messina, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2019-4696
Andrea AbateDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, 98125, Messina, Italy.
Olivér M BaloghCardiometabolic and HUN-REN-SU System Pharmacology Research Group, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6296-6383
Mátyás PéterváriCardiometabolic and HUN-REN-SU System Pharmacology Research Group, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4816-0746
Péter FerdinandyCardiometabolic and HUN-REN-SU System Pharmacology Research Group, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6424-6806
Bence ÁggCardiometabolic and HUN-REN-SU System Pharmacology Research Group, Department of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6492-0426
Vera BattiniPharmacovigilance and Clinical Research, International Centre for Pesticides and Health Risk Prevention, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (DIBIC), ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco University Hospital, Università Degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3513-9593
Marianna CoccoPharmacovigilance and Clinical Research, International Centre for Pesticides and Health Risk Prevention, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (DIBIC), ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco University Hospital, Università Degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Andrea RossiEpidemiology and Preventive Pharmacology Service (SEFAP), Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Milan, 20133, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-6475-2418
Carla CarnovalePharmacovigilance and Clinical Research, International Centre for Pesticides and Health Risk Prevention, Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (DIBIC), ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco University Hospital, Università Degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4107-196X
Manuela CasulaEpidemiology and Preventive Pharmacology Service (SEFAP), Department of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, University of Milan, 20133, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5124-5361
Edoardo SpinaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, 98125, Messina, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2509-7449
Maurizio SessaDepartment of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Jagtvej 160, 2100, Copenhagen, Capital Region, Denmark. maurizio.sessa@sund.ku.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0874-4744

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSafety signals for potential drug-induced adverse events (AEs) typically emerge from multiple data sources, primarily spontaneous reporting systems, despite known limitations. Increasingly, real-world data from sources such as electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative databases are leveraged for signal detection. Although network analysis has shown promise in mapping relationships between clinical attributes for signal detection in spontaneous reporting system databases, its application in real-world data from EHRs and administrative databases remains limited.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of network analysis in detecting safety signals within Italian administrative databases, using drug-induced acute myocardial infarction (AMI) as a proof of concept.

methodsWe employed a case-crossover design to explore the association between drug exposure and AMI using the Healthcare Administrative Database of Mantova, Italy, from 2014 to 2018. Patients with their first AMI hospitalization were identified after a 365-day washout period to exclude prior hospitalizations. We constructed a network to analyse the relationships between prescribed drugs and diagnoses, represented as nodes, with undirected edges illustrating their interactions. For each patient with AMI, we identified all diagnoses and drugs recorded or redeemed within 365 days of the first AMI episode and generated various drug-diagnosis, drug-drug, and diagnosis-diagnosis pairs. We calculated the frequency of these pairs, and three types of edge weights quantified the strength of connections. We identified outlier drug-AMI pairs using a predictive score (F) based on frequency (C) and full edge weights (W

resultsFrom 2014 to 2018, a total of 3918 patients had an AMI, with 4686 AMI diagnoses. Of those, 2866 had prescriptions in the previous year, totalling 498,591 prescriptions. A network analysis identified 2968 unique nodes, revealing 529,935 diagnosis-diagnosis connections, 235,380 drug-diagnosis connections, and 102,831 drug-drug connections. The median number of connections (C) was 404 (Q1-Q3: 194-671) for drug nodes and 380 (Q1-Q3: 216-664) for diagnosis nodes. The median W

conclusionsOverall, our novel method demonstrates that network analysis is a valuable tool for signal detection and prioritization in drug-induced AEs based on EHRs and administrative databases.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsElectronic Health RecordsMachine LearningMyocardial InfarctionAgedCross-Over StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedProof of Concept Study

Identifiers

PMID39918677
PMCPMC11982071

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.