ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2026
Beyond black boxes: using explainable causal artificial intelligence to separate signal from noise in pharmacovigilance.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward more accurate adverse event attribution in multiple myeloma clinical trials.Blood cancer journal · 2026Review
- AI for Causality Assessment in Pharmacovigilance: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Beyond transparency: why Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) need explainable artificial intelligence (XAI).Chinese medicine · 2026Review
- Advances in In Vitro Diagnostics for Cholangiocarcinoma: From Biomarker Discovery to Artificial Intelligence.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- From Semantic Modeling to Precision Radiotherapy: An AI Framework Linking Radiobiology, Oncology, and Public Health Integration.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.