ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026
Intelligent Automation Improved Efficiency in Pharmacovigilance Safety Signal Assessment.
Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacovigilance is the science involving the detection, assessment, understanding, and prevention of adverse events associated with drugs, biologics, or medical devices. In pharmacovigilance, information that suggests a new potential causal relationship between an intervention and an adverse event is called a safety signal. Following their detection, safety signals are assessed via a comprehensive, structured analysis to more fully elucidate whether a correlation exists. This key process often requires the manual assessment of many individual case safety report (ICSR) narratives to extract meaningful information in a labor-intensive, time-consuming, and variability-prone manner. In this retrospective feasibility study, we describe the potential utility of an intelligent automation system leveraging the GPT-4o large language model to automate the extraction of case elements of interest from a series of ICSR narratives while maintaining human expert oversight. Our proprietary platform allowed users to extract the presence or absence of risk factors and responses to dechallenge and rechallenge via instructional prompts built on a common template structure. Case elements for five historical signal assessments were selected based on need for and feasibility of artificial intelligence extraction. Performance ranged from F1 = 0.444 to 1.000 for risk factors and from F1 = 0.429 to 0.909 for responses to dechallenge and rechallenge. Even when considering the need to verify GPT-4o outputs for accuracy, potential time savings were identified. To the best of our knowledge, our results are the first to demonstrate an intelligent automation platform that may streamline signal management workflows using a machine-first, human-verified operational workflow while maintaining regulatory compliance.
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.