• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用高度全面的参考事件数据库对三种信号检测算法进行评估。

An evaluation of three signal-detection algorithms using a highly inclusive reference event database.

作者信息

Hochberg Alan M, Hauben Manfred, Pearson Ronald K, O'Hara Donald J, Reisinger Stephanie J, Goldsmith David I, Gould A Lawrence, Madigan David

机构信息

ProSanos Corporation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17102, USA.

出版信息

Drug Saf. 2009;32(6):509-25. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200932060-00007.

DOI:10.2165/00002018-200932060-00007
PMID:19459718
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Pharmacovigilance data-mining algorithms (DMAs) are known to generate significant numbers of false-positive signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs), using various standards to define the terms 'true positive' and 'false positive'.

OBJECTIVE

To construct a highly inclusive reference event database of reported adverse events for a limited set of drugs, and to utilize that database to evaluate three DMAs for their overall yield of scientifically supported adverse drug effects, with an emphasis on ascertaining false-positive rates as defined by matching to the database, and to assess the overlap among SDRs detected by various DMAs.

METHODS

A sample of 35 drugs approved by the US FDA between 2000 and 2004 was selected, including three drugs added to cover therapeutic categories not included in the original sample. We compiled a reference event database of adverse event information for these drugs from historical and current US prescribing information, from peer-reviewed literature covering 1999 through March 2006, from regulatory actions announced by the FDA and from adverse event listings in the British National Formulary. Every adverse event mentioned in these sources was entered into the database, even those with minimal evidence for causality. To provide some selectivity regarding causality, each entry was assigned a level of evidence based on the source of the information, using rules developed by the authors. Using the FDA adverse event reporting system data for 2002 through 2005, SDRs were identified for each drug using three DMAs: an urn-model based algorithm, the Gamma Poisson Shrinker (GPS) and proportional reporting ratio (PRR), using previously published signalling thresholds. The absolute number and fraction of SDRs matching the reference event database at each level of evidence was determined for each report source and the data-mining method. Overlap of the SDR lists among the various methods and report sources was tabulated as well.

RESULTS

The GPS algorithm had the lowest overall yield of SDRs (763), with the highest fraction of events matching the reference event database (89 SDRs, 11.7%), excluding events described in the prescribing information at the time of drug approval. The urn model yielded more SDRs (1562), with a non-significantly lower fraction matching (175 SDRs, 11.2%). PRR detected still more SDRs (3616), but with a lower fraction matching (296 SDRs, 8.2%). In terms of overlap of SDRs among algorithms, PRR uniquely detected the highest number of SDRs (2231, with 144, or 6.5%, matching), followed by the urn model (212, with 26, or 12.3%, matching) and then GPS (0 SDRs uniquely detected).

CONCLUSIONS

The three DMAs studied offer significantly different tradeoffs between the number of SDRs detected and the degree to which those SDRs are supported by external evidence. Those differences may reflect choices of detection thresholds as well as features of the algorithms themselves. For all three algorithms, there is a substantial fraction of SDRs for which no external supporting evidence can be found, even when a highly inclusive search for such evidence is conducted.

摘要

背景

已知药物警戒数据挖掘算法(DMA)会使用各种标准来定义“真阳性”和“假阳性”,从而产生大量不成比例报告(SDR)的假阳性信号。

目的

为一组有限的药物构建一个包含性强的已报告不良事件参考事件数据库,并利用该数据库评估三种DMA在科学支持的药物不良反应总体产出方面的情况,重点是根据与该数据库匹配情况确定假阳性率,并评估各种DMA检测到的SDR之间的重叠情况。

方法

选取了2000年至2004年期间美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准的35种药物样本,其中包括三种新增药物以涵盖原始样本中未包含的治疗类别。我们从美国历史和当前的处方信息、涵盖1999年至2006年3月的同行评审文献、FDA宣布的监管行动以及英国国家处方集的不良事件列表中,汇编了这些药物的不良事件信息参考事件数据库。这些来源中提及的每一个不良事件都被录入数据库,即使那些因果关系证据极少的事件。为了在因果关系方面提供一定的选择性,根据作者制定的规则,基于信息来源为每个条目分配一个证据级别。利用2002年至2005年的FDA不良事件报告系统数据,使用三种DMA为每种药物识别SDR:基于瓮模型的算法、伽马泊松收缩器(GPS)和比例报告比(PRR),使用先前公布的信号阈值。针对每个报告来源和数据挖掘方法,确定在每个证据级别上与参考事件数据库匹配的SDR的绝对数量和比例。还将各种方法和报告来源之间SDR列表的重叠情况制成表格。

结果

GPS算法的SDR总体产出最低(763个),与参考事件数据库匹配的事件比例最高(89个SDR,11.7%),不包括药物批准时处方信息中描述的事件。瓮模型产生的SDR更多(1562个),匹配比例略低(175个SDR,11.2%)。PRR检测到的SDR更多(3616个),但匹配比例更低(296个SDR,8.2%)。就算法之间SDR的重叠而言,PRR独特检测到的SDR数量最多(2231个,其中144个,即6.5%,匹配),其次是瓮模型(212个,其中26个,即12.3%,匹配),然后是GPS(无独特检测到的SDR)。

结论

所研究的三种DMA在检测到的SDR数量与这些SDR得到外部证据支持的程度之间提供了显著不同的权衡。这些差异可能反映了检测阈值的选择以及算法本身的特征。对于所有三种算法,即使进行了高度包容的此类证据搜索,仍有很大一部分SDR找不到外部支持证据。

相似文献

1
An evaluation of three signal-detection algorithms using a highly inclusive reference event database.使用高度全面的参考事件数据库对三种信号检测算法进行评估。
Drug Saf. 2009;32(6):509-25. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200932060-00007.
2
Influence of the MedDRA hierarchy on pharmacovigilance data mining results.MedDRA 层次结构对药物警戒数据挖掘结果的影响。
Int J Med Inform. 2009 Dec;78(12):e97-e103. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.01.001. Epub 2009 Feb 18.
3
An experimental investigation of masking in the US FDA adverse event reporting system database.美国 FDA 不良事件报告系统数据库中掩蔽的实验研究。
Drug Saf. 2010 Dec 1;33(12):1117-33. doi: 10.2165/11584390-000000000-00000.
4
Comparative performance of two quantitative safety signalling methods: implications for use in a pharmacovigilance department.两种定量安全信号方法的比较性能:对药物警戒部门使用的启示
Drug Saf. 2006;29(10):875-87. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200629100-00005.
5
Potential use of data-mining algorithms for the detection of 'surprise' adverse drug reactions.数据挖掘算法在检测“意外”药物不良反应中的潜在应用。
Drug Saf. 2007;30(2):143-55. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200730020-00004.
6
Investigating Overlap in Signals from EVDAS, FAERS, and VigiBase.调查 EVDAS、FAERS 和 VigiBase 信号中的重叠。
Drug Saf. 2020 Apr;43(4):351-362. doi: 10.1007/s40264-019-00899-y.
7
Reducing the noise in signal detection of adverse drug reactions by standardizing the background: a pilot study on analyses of proportional reporting ratios-by-therapeutic area.通过标准化背景来降低药物不良反应信号检测中的噪声:按治疗领域分析比例报告率的一项试点研究
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2014 May;70(5):627-35. doi: 10.1007/s00228-014-1658-1. Epub 2014 Mar 7.
8
Postmarketing surveillance of potentially fatal reactions to oncology drugs: potential utility of two signal-detection algorithms.肿瘤药物潜在致命反应的上市后监测:两种信号检测算法的潜在效用
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Dec;60(10):747-50. doi: 10.1007/s00228-004-0834-0. Epub 2004 Nov 17.
9
Use of screening algorithms and computer systems to efficiently signal higher-than-expected combinations of drugs and events in the US FDA's spontaneous reports database.在美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)的自发报告数据库中,使用筛查算法和计算机系统来有效地标记高于预期的药物与事件组合。
Drug Saf. 2002;25(6):381-92. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200225060-00001.
10
Illusions of objectivity and a recommendation for reporting data mining results.客观性的错觉及数据挖掘结果报告的建议
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007 May;63(5):517-21. doi: 10.1007/s00228-007-0279-3. Epub 2007 Mar 16.

引用本文的文献

1
Multivariate generalized mixed-effects models for screening multiple adverse drug reactions in spontaneous reporting systems.用于自发报告系统中多种药物不良反应筛查的多变量广义混合效应模型。
Front Pharmacol. 2024 Jan 16;15:1312803. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1312803. eCollection 2024.
2
Exploring the impact of design criteria for reference sets on performance evaluation of signal detection algorithms: The case of drug-drug interactions.探索参考集设计标准对信号检测算法性能评估的影响:以药物相互作用为例。
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2023 Aug;32(8):832-844. doi: 10.1002/pds.5609. Epub 2023 Mar 26.
3
A Data-Driven Reference Standard for Adverse Drug Reaction (RS-ADR) Signal Assessment: Development and Validation.

本文引用的文献

1
Time-to-signal comparison for drug safety data-mining algorithms vs. traditional signaling criteria.药物安全数据挖掘算法与传统信号标准的信号生成时间比较。
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Jun;85(6):600-6. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2009.26. Epub 2009 Mar 25.
2
Effects of stratification on data mining in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).分层对美国疫苗不良事件报告系统(VAERS)中数据挖掘的影响。
Drug Saf. 2008;31(8):667-74. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200831080-00003.
3
Gold standards in pharmacovigilance: the use of definitive anecdotal reports of adverse drug reactions as pure gold and high-grade ore.
基于数据的药物不良反应(RS-ADR)信号评估参考标准:制定与验证。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Oct 6;24(10):e35464. doi: 10.2196/35464.
4
Artificial Intelligence Based on Machine Learning in Pharmacovigilance: A Scoping Review.基于机器学习的药物警戒人工智能:范围综述。
Drug Saf. 2022 May;45(5):477-491. doi: 10.1007/s40264-022-01176-1. Epub 2022 May 17.
5
Borrowing external information to improve Bayesian confidence propagation neural network.借用外部信息来改进贝叶斯置信传播神经网络。
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2020 Sep;76(9):1311-1319. doi: 10.1007/s00228-020-02909-w. Epub 2020 Jun 1.
6
Early signal detection of adverse events following influenza vaccination using proportional reporting ratio, Victoria, Australia.使用比例报告比,对澳大利亚维多利亚州流感疫苗接种后不良事件进行早期信号检测。
PLoS One. 2019 Nov 1;14(11):e0224702. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224702. eCollection 2019.
7
Evaluation of quantitative signal detection in EudraVigilance for orphan drugs: possible risk of false negatives.评估欧洲药品警戒系统(EudraVigilance)中罕见病药物的定量信号检测:假阴性的潜在风险。
Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2019 Oct 21;10:2042098619882819. doi: 10.1177/2042098619882819. eCollection 2019.
8
Signal Detection for Recently Approved Products: Adapting and Evaluating Self-Controlled Case Series Method Using a US Claims and UK Electronic Medical Records Database.近期获批产品的信号检测:使用美国索赔和英国电子病历数据库对自我对照病例系列方法进行调整和评估。
Drug Saf. 2018 May;41(5):523-536. doi: 10.1007/s40264-017-0626-y.
9
A Pharmacovigilance Signaling System Based on FDA Regulatory Action and Post-Marketing Adverse Event Reports.一种基于美国食品药品监督管理局监管行动和上市后不良事件报告的药物警戒信号系统。
Drug Saf. 2016 Jun;39(6):561-75. doi: 10.1007/s40264-016-0409-x.
10
Statistical Signal Detection as a Routine Pharmacovigilance Practice: Effects of Periodicity and Resignalling Criteria on Quality and Workload.作为常规药物警戒实践的统计信号检测:周期性和重新信号标准对质量和工作量的影响
Drug Saf. 2015 Dec;38(12):1219-31. doi: 10.1007/s40264-015-0345-1.
药物警戒的金标准:将药物不良反应的确切轶事性报告用作纯金和高品位矿石。
Drug Saf. 2007;30(8):645-55. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200730080-00001.
4
What counts in data mining?数据挖掘中重要的是什么?
Drug Saf. 2006;29(10):827-32. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200629100-00001.
5
Perspectives on the use of data mining in pharmaco-vigilance.药物警戒中数据挖掘应用的观点。
Drug Saf. 2005;28(11):981-1007. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200528110-00002.
6
Signal detection in pharmacovigilance: empirical evaluation of data mining tools.药物警戒中的信号检测:数据挖掘工具的实证评估
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005 Sep;14(9):597-9. doi: 10.1002/pds.1128.
7
The role of data mining in pharmacovigilance.数据挖掘在药物警戒中的作用。
Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2005 Sep;4(5):929-48. doi: 10.1517/14740338.4.5.929.
8
Communication of findings in pharmacovigilance: use of the term "signal" and the need for precision in its use.药物警戒中研究结果的传达:“信号”一词的使用及其精确使用的必要性。
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2005 Jul;61(5-6):479-80. doi: 10.1007/s00228-005-0951-4. Epub 2005 Jul 1.
9
Safety related drug-labelling changes: findings from two data mining algorithms.与安全性相关的药品标签变更:两种数据挖掘算法的研究结果
Drug Saf. 2004;27(10):735-44. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200427100-00004.
10
Trimethoprim-induced hyperkalaemia -- lessons in data mining.甲氧苄啶诱发的高钾血症——数据挖掘中的经验教训
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Sep;58(3):338-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2004.02153.x.