Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40889016›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026

Beyond black boxes: using explainable causal artificial intelligence to separate signal from noise in pharmacovigilance.

Renato Ferreira-da-Silva, Ricardo Cruz-Correia, Inês Ribeiro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

3 authors.

Renato Ferreira-da-SilvaPorto Pharmacovigilance Centre, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Alameda Professor Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal. rsilva@med.up.pt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6517-6021
Ricardo Cruz-CorreiaRISE-Health, Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3764-5158
Inês RibeiroPorto Pharmacovigilance Centre, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Alameda Professor Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3442-8158

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning (ML), is increasingly influencing pharmacovigilance (PV) by improving case triage and signal detection. Several studies have reported encouraging performance, with high F1 scores and alignment with expert assessments, suggesting that AI tools can help prioritize reports and identify potential safety issues faster than manual review. However, integrating these tools into PV raises concerns. Most models are designed for prediction, not explanation, and operate as "black boxes," offering limited insight into how decisions are made. This lack of transparency may undermine trust and clinical utility, especially in a domain where causality is central. Traditional ML relies on correlational patterns and may amplify biases inherent in spontaneous reporting systems, such as under-reporting, missing data, and confounding. Recent developments in explainable AI (XAI) and causal AI aim to address these issues by offering more interpretable and causally meaningful outputs, but their use in PV remains limited. These methods face challenges, including the need for robust data, the difficulty of defining ground truth for adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and the lack of standard validation frameworks. In this commentary, we explore the promise and pitfalls of AI in PV and argue for a shift toward causally informed, interpretable models grounded in epidemiological reasoning. We identify four priorities: incorporating causal inference into AI workflows; developing benchmark datasets to support transparent evaluation; ensuring model outputs align with clinical and regulatory logic; and upholding rigorous validation standards. The goal is not to replace expert judgment, but to enhance it with tools that are more transparent, reliable, and capable of separating true signals from noise. Moving toward explainable and causally robust AI is essential to ensure that its application in pharmacovigilance is both scientifically credible and ethically sound.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsArtificial IntelligenceDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPharmacovigilanceHumansMachine LearningArtificial intelligenceCausalityDigital healthDrug-related side effects and adverse reactionsMachine learningPharmacovigilance

Identifiers

PMID40889016
PMCPMC12992339

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.