ArticleResearch square2025
Enhancing Relation Extraction for COVID-19 Vaccine Shot-Adverse Event Associations with Large Language Models.
Article in Research square, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: The rapid evolution of the COVID-19 virus has led to the development of different vaccine shots, each designed to combat specific variants and enhance overall efficacy. While vaccines have been crucial in controlling the spread of the virus, they can also cause adverse events (AEs). Understanding these relationships is vital for vaccine safety monitoring and surveillance. Methods: In our study, we collected data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and social media platforms (Twitter and Reddit) to extract relationships between COVID-19 vaccine shots and adverse events. The dataset comprised 771 relation pairs, enabling a comprehensive analysis of adverse event patterns. We employed state-of-the-art GPT models, including GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, alongside traditional models such as Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) and BioBERT, to extract these relationships. Additionally, we used two sets of post-processing rules to further refine the extracted relations. Evaluation metrics including precision, recall, and F1-score were used to assess the performance of our models in extracting these relationships accurately. Results: The most commonly reported AEs following the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines include arm soreness, fatigue, and headache, while the spectrum of AEs following boosters is more diverse. In relation extraction, fine-tuned GPT-3.5 with Sentence-based Relation Identification achieved the highest precision of 0.94 and a perfect recall of 1, resulting in an impressive F1 score of 0.97. Conclusion: This study advances biomedical informatics by showing how large language models and deep learning models can extract relationships between vaccine shots and adverse events from VAERS and social media. These findings improve vaccine safety monitoring and clinical practice by enhancing our understanding of post-vaccination symptoms. The study sets a precedent for future research in natural language processing and biomedical informatics, with potential applications in pharmacovigilance and clinical decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.