Statistical Signal Detection Algorithm in Safety Data: A Proprietary Method Compared to Industry Standard Methods
Introduction Several quantitative methods have been established, in pharmacovigilance, to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) from databases containing reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The signal detection algorithms (SDAs) and the source of the reporting per product vary, b...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Pharmaceutical medicine Vol. 38; no. 4; pp. 321 - 329 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Cham
Springer International Publishing
01.07.2024
Springer Nature B.V |
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 1178-2595, 1179-1993, 1179-1993 |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | Introduction
Several quantitative methods have been established, in pharmacovigilance, to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) from databases containing reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The signal detection algorithms (SDAs) and the source of the reporting per product vary, but it is unclear whether any algorithm can provide satisfactory performance using data with such large variance factors.
Objective
Determine the appropriate SDA for Biogen’s internal Global Safety Database (GSD) given the characteristics of the database including frequencies of events, data skewness, outliers, and missing information. Compare performance of standard approaches (EBGM, EB05, PRR, and ROR), well accepted by industry, to a Biogen-developed Machine Learning (ML) Regression Decision Tree (RDT) model, across several Biogen products, to determine a champion SDA.
Methods
All data associated with seven marketed Biogen products were chosen and a historical subset of reported ADRs were considered. Six SDAs (five common industry disproportionality methods) and RDT were evaluated. The SDRs were calculated on training and test data composed of quarterly reporting intervals from 2004–2019. The performance measures used were sensitivity, precision, time to detect new events, and frequency of detected cases for each algorithm for each product. Outcomes in the test data are known a priori and easily compared to predicted outcomes. Validation was performed via rates of misclassification. This work solely represents Biogen’s internal information, intentionally chosen to serve the performance review of its signal detection systems, and results will not necessarily be generalizable to other external sources.
Results
Several algorithms performed differently among products, but no one method dominated any other. Performance was dependent on the thresholds used to define a signal according to different criteria. However, those different statistics subtly influenced the achievable performance. The relative performance of RDT and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) algorithms were superior and paired across products. A reduction in precision for all methods spanning the products was present. Hence, companies evaluating signal detection approaches, search for innovative methods to minimize this effect.
Conclusions
In designing signal detection systems, careful consideration should be given to the criteria that are used to define SDRs. The choice of disproportionality statistics does not affect the achievable range of signal detection performance. These choices should consider mainly ease of implementation and interpretation. The implementation of a method is specific to its accuracy. The RDT attempted to take advantage of known methods and compare results on a per-product basis. Many factors influencing ADRs may improve RDT in future efforts. In this experiment, RDT demonstrated superiority in terms of quickest time to detect and capturing of the highest number of ADRs. Next steps include expansion of data for products representing other indications and testing models in external databases to investigate generalizability of estimates when comparing SDAs. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Introduction
Several quantitative methods have been established, in pharmacovigilance, to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) from databases containing reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The signal detection algorithms (SDAs) and the source of the reporting per product vary, but it is unclear whether any algorithm can provide satisfactory performance using data with such large variance factors.
Objective
Determine the appropriate SDA for Biogen’s internal Global Safety Database (GSD) given the characteristics of the database including frequencies of events, data skewness, outliers, and missing information. Compare performance of standard approaches (EBGM, EB05, PRR, and ROR), well accepted by industry, to a Biogen-developed Machine Learning (ML) Regression Decision Tree (RDT) model, across several Biogen products, to determine a champion SDA.
Methods
All data associated with seven marketed Biogen products were chosen and a historical subset of reported ADRs were considered. Six SDAs (five common industry disproportionality methods) and RDT were evaluated. The SDRs were calculated on training and test data composed of quarterly reporting intervals from 2004–2019. The performance measures used were sensitivity, precision, time to detect new events, and frequency of detected cases for each algorithm for each product. Outcomes in the test data are known a priori and easily compared to predicted outcomes. Validation was performed via rates of misclassification. This work solely represents Biogen’s internal information, intentionally chosen to serve the performance review of its signal detection systems, and results will not necessarily be generalizable to other external sources.
Results
Several algorithms performed differently among products, but no one method dominated any other. Performance was dependent on the thresholds used to define a signal according to different criteria. However, those different statistics subtly influenced the achievable performance. The relative performance of RDT and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) algorithms were superior and paired across products. A reduction in precision for all methods spanning the products was present. Hence, companies evaluating signal detection approaches, search for innovative methods to minimize this effect.
Conclusions
In designing signal detection systems, careful consideration should be given to the criteria that are used to define SDRs. The choice of disproportionality statistics does not affect the achievable range of signal detection performance. These choices should consider mainly ease of implementation and interpretation. The implementation of a method is specific to its accuracy. The RDT attempted to take advantage of known methods and compare results on a per-product basis. Many factors influencing ADRs may improve RDT in future efforts. In this experiment, RDT demonstrated superiority in terms of quickest time to detect and capturing of the highest number of ADRs. Next steps include expansion of data for products representing other indications and testing models in external databases to investigate generalizability of estimates when comparing SDAs. Introduction Several quantitative methods have been established, in pharmacovigilance, to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) from databases containing reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The signal detection algorithms (SDAs) and the source of the reporting per product vary, but it is unclear whether any algorithm can provide satisfactory performance using data with such large variance factors.Objective Determine the appropriate SDA for Biogen's internal Global Safety Database (GSD) given the characteristics of the database including frequencies of events, data skewness, outliers, and missing information. Compare performance of standard approaches (EBGM, EB05, PRR, and ROR), well accepted by industry, to a Biogen-developed Machine Learning (ML) Regression Decision Tree (RDT) model, across several Biogen products, to determine a champion SDA.Methods All data associated with seven marketed Biogen products were chosen and a historical subset of reported ADRs were considered. Six SDAs (five common industry disproportionality methods) and RDT were evaluated. The SDRs were calculated on training and test data composed of quarterly reporting intervals from 2004-2019. The performance measures used were sensitivity, precision, time to detect new events, and frequency of detected cases for each algorithm for each product. Outcomes in the test data are known a priori and easily compared to predicted outcomes. Validation was performed via rates of misclassification. This work solely represents Biogen's internal information, intentionally chosen to serve the performance review of its signal detection systems, and results will not necessarily be generalizable to other external sources.Results Several algorithms performed differently among products, but no one method dominated any other. Performance was dependent on the thresholds used to define a signal according to different criteria. However, those different statistics subtly influenced the achievable performance. The relative performance of RDT and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) algorithms were superior and paired across products. A reduction in precision for all methods spanning the products was present. Hence, companies evaluating signal detection approaches, search for innovative methods to minimize this effect.Conclusions In designing signal detection systems, careful consideration should be given to the criteria that are used to define SDRs. The choice of disproportionality statistics does not affect the achievable range of signal detection performance. These choices should consider mainly ease of implementation and interpretation. The implementation of a method is specific to its accuracy. The RDT attempted to take advantage of known methods and compare results on a per-product basis. Many factors influencing ADRs may improve RDT in future efforts. In this experiment, RDT demonstrated superiority in terms of quickest time to detect and capturing of the highest number of ADRs. Next steps include expansion of data for products representing other indications and testing models in external databases to investigate generalizability of estimates when comparing SDAs. Several quantitative methods have been established, in pharmacovigilance, to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) from databases containing reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The signal detection algorithms (SDAs) and the source of the reporting per product vary, but it is unclear whether any algorithm can provide satisfactory performance using data with such large variance factors.INTRODUCTIONSeveral quantitative methods have been established, in pharmacovigilance, to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) from databases containing reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The signal detection algorithms (SDAs) and the source of the reporting per product vary, but it is unclear whether any algorithm can provide satisfactory performance using data with such large variance factors.Determine the appropriate SDA for Biogen's internal Global Safety Database (GSD) given the characteristics of the database including frequencies of events, data skewness, outliers, and missing information. Compare performance of standard approaches (EBGM, EB05, PRR, and ROR), well accepted by industry, to a Biogen-developed Machine Learning (ML) Regression Decision Tree (RDT) model, across several Biogen products, to determine a champion SDA.OBJECTIVEDetermine the appropriate SDA for Biogen's internal Global Safety Database (GSD) given the characteristics of the database including frequencies of events, data skewness, outliers, and missing information. Compare performance of standard approaches (EBGM, EB05, PRR, and ROR), well accepted by industry, to a Biogen-developed Machine Learning (ML) Regression Decision Tree (RDT) model, across several Biogen products, to determine a champion SDA.All data associated with seven marketed Biogen products were chosen and a historical subset of reported ADRs were considered. Six SDAs (five common industry disproportionality methods) and RDT were evaluated. The SDRs were calculated on training and test data composed of quarterly reporting intervals from 2004-2019. The performance measures used were sensitivity, precision, time to detect new events, and frequency of detected cases for each algorithm for each product. Outcomes in the test data are known a priori and easily compared to predicted outcomes. Validation was performed via rates of misclassification. This work solely represents Biogen's internal information, intentionally chosen to serve the performance review of its signal detection systems, and results will not necessarily be generalizable to other external sources.METHODSAll data associated with seven marketed Biogen products were chosen and a historical subset of reported ADRs were considered. Six SDAs (five common industry disproportionality methods) and RDT were evaluated. The SDRs were calculated on training and test data composed of quarterly reporting intervals from 2004-2019. The performance measures used were sensitivity, precision, time to detect new events, and frequency of detected cases for each algorithm for each product. Outcomes in the test data are known a priori and easily compared to predicted outcomes. Validation was performed via rates of misclassification. This work solely represents Biogen's internal information, intentionally chosen to serve the performance review of its signal detection systems, and results will not necessarily be generalizable to other external sources.Several algorithms performed differently among products, but no one method dominated any other. Performance was dependent on the thresholds used to define a signal according to different criteria. However, those different statistics subtly influenced the achievable performance. The relative performance of RDT and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) algorithms were superior and paired across products. A reduction in precision for all methods spanning the products was present. Hence, companies evaluating signal detection approaches, search for innovative methods to minimize this effect.RESULTSSeveral algorithms performed differently among products, but no one method dominated any other. Performance was dependent on the thresholds used to define a signal according to different criteria. However, those different statistics subtly influenced the achievable performance. The relative performance of RDT and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) algorithms were superior and paired across products. A reduction in precision for all methods spanning the products was present. Hence, companies evaluating signal detection approaches, search for innovative methods to minimize this effect.In designing signal detection systems, careful consideration should be given to the criteria that are used to define SDRs. The choice of disproportionality statistics does not affect the achievable range of signal detection performance. These choices should consider mainly ease of implementation and interpretation. The implementation of a method is specific to its accuracy. The RDT attempted to take advantage of known methods and compare results on a per-product basis. Many factors influencing ADRs may improve RDT in future efforts. In this experiment, RDT demonstrated superiority in terms of quickest time to detect and capturing of the highest number of ADRs. Next steps include expansion of data for products representing other indications and testing models in external databases to investigate generalizability of estimates when comparing SDAs.CONCLUSIONSIn designing signal detection systems, careful consideration should be given to the criteria that are used to define SDRs. The choice of disproportionality statistics does not affect the achievable range of signal detection performance. These choices should consider mainly ease of implementation and interpretation. The implementation of a method is specific to its accuracy. The RDT attempted to take advantage of known methods and compare results on a per-product basis. Many factors influencing ADRs may improve RDT in future efforts. In this experiment, RDT demonstrated superiority in terms of quickest time to detect and capturing of the highest number of ADRs. Next steps include expansion of data for products representing other indications and testing models in external databases to investigate generalizability of estimates when comparing SDAs. Several quantitative methods have been established, in pharmacovigilance, to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) from databases containing reports of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The signal detection algorithms (SDAs) and the source of the reporting per product vary, but it is unclear whether any algorithm can provide satisfactory performance using data with such large variance factors. Determine the appropriate SDA for Biogen's internal Global Safety Database (GSD) given the characteristics of the database including frequencies of events, data skewness, outliers, and missing information. Compare performance of standard approaches (EBGM, EB05, PRR, and ROR), well accepted by industry, to a Biogen-developed Machine Learning (ML) Regression Decision Tree (RDT) model, across several Biogen products, to determine a champion SDA. All data associated with seven marketed Biogen products were chosen and a historical subset of reported ADRs were considered. Six SDAs (five common industry disproportionality methods) and RDT were evaluated. The SDRs were calculated on training and test data composed of quarterly reporting intervals from 2004-2019. The performance measures used were sensitivity, precision, time to detect new events, and frequency of detected cases for each algorithm for each product. Outcomes in the test data are known a priori and easily compared to predicted outcomes. Validation was performed via rates of misclassification. This work solely represents Biogen's internal information, intentionally chosen to serve the performance review of its signal detection systems, and results will not necessarily be generalizable to other external sources. Several algorithms performed differently among products, but no one method dominated any other. Performance was dependent on the thresholds used to define a signal according to different criteria. However, those different statistics subtly influenced the achievable performance. The relative performance of RDT and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) algorithms were superior and paired across products. A reduction in precision for all methods spanning the products was present. Hence, companies evaluating signal detection approaches, search for innovative methods to minimize this effect. In designing signal detection systems, careful consideration should be given to the criteria that are used to define SDRs. The choice of disproportionality statistics does not affect the achievable range of signal detection performance. These choices should consider mainly ease of implementation and interpretation. The implementation of a method is specific to its accuracy. The RDT attempted to take advantage of known methods and compare results on a per-product basis. Many factors influencing ADRs may improve RDT in future efforts. In this experiment, RDT demonstrated superiority in terms of quickest time to detect and capturing of the highest number of ADRs. Next steps include expansion of data for products representing other indications and testing models in external databases to investigate generalizability of estimates when comparing SDAs. |
| Author | Bastos, Eugenia Philip, Jeff Allen, Jeff K. |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Eugenia surname: Bastos fullname: Bastos, Eugenia – sequence: 2 givenname: Jeff K. orcidid: 0009-0007-0197-202X surname: Allen fullname: Allen, Jeff K. email: jeff.allen@biogen.com organization: Biogen, Safety and Benefit Risk Management – sequence: 3 givenname: Jeff surname: Philip fullname: Philip, Jeff organization: Biogen, Safety and Benefit Risk Management |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39003400$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp9kTtvHCEUhVHkKH7-gRQWkps0k_CYMeButU4cS45iad0jBu6ssWZgDUzhfx_Wu1YkF64uEt-5cM45RgchBkDoKyXfKSHiR24JU6QhrG0I6Thp6Cd0RKlQDVWKH7yeZcM61R2is5x9TxjnUl4K8QUdckUIbwk5Qs-rYorPxVsz4pVfhzquoYAtPga8GNcx-fI4YR_wygxQXvC1KeYKL_B9ipvkoZj0gv9AeYwOL-O0MQkcLhHfBjfnUu_qA8GZ5PZQPkWfBzNmONvPE_Tw6-fD8ndz9_fmdrm4aywXXWlML7pLYcD1rLWU2LYXAMPQS-OYcQqEFY5XUyAdU3wgVjKpjFJWUjBU8hP0bbd2k-LzDLnoyWcL42gCxDlrToRSnWCtqOjFO_QpzqkmsaVkJ2gnWlWp8z019xM4Xc1P1bt-y7ICcgfYFHNOMGjrt-HGUJLxo6ZEb5vTu-Z0bU6_NqdplbJ30rftH4r4TpQrHNaQ_n_7A9U_A2yrLQ |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1111_bcpt_70099 crossref_primary_10_1080_14740338_2025_2545926 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40290_025_00561_2 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1007/s40264-015-0289-5 10.1007/s40264-015-0345-1 10.1007/s40264-020-00911-w.Accessed06Jun 10.3389/fphar.2021.773135 10.1038/clpt.2013.24 10.1007/s40264-016-0405-1 10.3389/fphar.2022.891336 10.1002/pds.1001 10.18653/v1/2020.eval4nlp-1.9 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Jul 2024 |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. – notice: 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG. – notice: Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Jul 2024 |
| DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 4T- 7X7 7XB 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABUWG AFKRA BENPR CCPQU FYUFA GHDGH K9. M0S PHGZM PHGZT PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1007/s40290-024-00530-1 |
| DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed ProQuest Central (Corporate) Docstoc Health & Medical Collection (ProQuest) ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland ProQuest Central ProQuest One Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Collection Proquest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic (retired) ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Hospital Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Central China ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Central ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection Health Research Premium Collection ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) Docstoc ProQuest One Academic ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest One Academic (New) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X7 name: Health & Medical Collection url: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Pharmacy, Therapeutics, & Pharmacology |
| EISSN | 1179-1993 |
| EndPage | 329 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 39003400 10_1007_s40290_024_00530_1 |
| Genre | Journal Article Comparative Study |
| GroupedDBID | --- -5G -BR -EM 0R~ 123 29O 3V. 4.4 406 53G 7X7 8FI 8FJ 8R4 8R5 95. AACDK AADNT AAIAL AAIKX AAJKR AAKAS AASML AATNV AAYQN AAYZH ABAKF ABDBF ABDZT ABFTV ABJOX ABKCH ABKTR ABPLI ABTKH ABTMW ABUWG ABXPI ACAOD ACCOQ ACCUX ACDTI ACGFS ACMLO ACPIV ACUHS ACZOJ ADBBV ADFZG ADHHG ADRFC ADURQ ADZCM ADZKW AEBTG AEFQL AEJHL AEJRE AEMSY AEOHA AESKC AFALF AFKRA AFZKB AGDGC AGQEE AGQMX AGRTI AHMBA AHSBF AIAKS AIGIU AILAN ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMXSW ASPBG AUKKA AVWKF AWSVR AXYYD BENPR BGNMA BPHCQ BVXVI BYPQX CAG CCPQU COF DCUDU DPUIP DU5 EBD EBLON EBS EJD ESX F5P FIGPU FLLZZ FNLPD FSGXE FYUFA HMCUK IAO IEA IHR INH INR ITC IWAJR J-C JZLTJ LLZTM M4Y MK0 NQJWS NU0 OAC OVD P2P PQQKQ PROAC Q2X ROL RSV SISQX SJYHP SNPRN SOHCF SOJ SPKJE SRMVM SSLCW TEORI TSG TUS U9L UG4 UKHRP UTJUX VDBLX VFIZW W48 Z7U ~JE AAYXX ABBRH ABDBE ABFSG ABRTQ ACSTC AEZWR AFDZB AFHIU AHWEU AIXLP ATHPR AYFIA CITATION PHGZM AAYTO ABJNI ADQRH AEPYU AFBBN AFOHR AGAYW AMYLF CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 4T- 7XB 8FK K9. PHGZT PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQUKI PRINS 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-ab7567aedb24c10c4b7eeffb8ad2ad9e7c7d3b02e8d293f0c8289a99c81ea183 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X7 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 3 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=001270778900002&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1178-2595 1179-1993 |
| IngestDate | Fri Jul 11 07:30:57 EDT 2025 Fri Nov 07 23:36:57 EST 2025 Mon Jul 21 05:33:12 EDT 2025 Tue Nov 18 21:14:55 EST 2025 Sat Nov 29 03:54:50 EST 2025 Fri Feb 21 02:39:36 EST 2025 |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 4 |
| Language | English |
| License | 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c375t-ab7567aedb24c10c4b7eeffb8ad2ad9e7c7d3b02e8d293f0c8289a99c81ea183 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0009-0007-0197-202X |
| PMID | 39003400 |
| PQID | 3085715749 |
| PQPubID | 38346 |
| PageCount | 9 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_3079957247 proquest_journals_3085715749 pubmed_primary_39003400 crossref_citationtrail_10_1007_s40290_024_00530_1 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40290_024_00530_1 springer_journals_10_1007_s40290_024_00530_1 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 20240700 2024-07-00 2024-Jul 20240701 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2024-07-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 7 year: 2024 text: 20240700 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | Cham |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Cham – name: New Zealand – name: Auckland |
| PublicationTitle | Pharmaceutical medicine |
| PublicationTitleAbbrev | Pharm Med |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Pharmaceut Med |
| PublicationYear | 2024 |
| Publisher | Springer International Publishing Springer Nature B.V |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Springer International Publishing – name: Springer Nature B.V |
| References | Candore, Juhlin, Mahlik, Thaklar, Quarcoo, Seabroke, Wisniewski, Slattery (CR2) 2015; 38 CR10 Rothman, Lanes, Sacks (CR5) 2004; 13 CR3 Wisniewski, Bate, Bousquet (CR8) 2016; 39 Ji, Cui, Xu, Jie, Zhang, Ren (CR4) 2022 Harpaz, DuMouchel, LePendu, Bauer-Mehren, Ryan, Shah (CR9) 2013; 93 Lerch, Nowicki, Manlik, Wirsching (CR7) 2015; 38 Zhou, Yin, Zhang, Shao, Mao, Hu (CR6) 2022; 28 Caster, Aoki, Gattepaille, Grundmark (CR1) 2023; 2020 ZX Zhou (530_CR6) 2022; 28 530_CR10 530_CR3 A Wisniewski (530_CR8) 2016; 39 R Harpaz (530_CR9) 2013; 93 X Ji (530_CR4) 2022 O Caster (530_CR1) 2023; 2020 G Candore (530_CR2) 2015; 38 KJ Rothman (530_CR5) 2004; 13 M Lerch (530_CR7) 2015; 38 |
| References_xml | – volume: 38 start-page: 577 year: 2015 end-page: 587 ident: CR2 article-title: Comparison of statistical signal detection methods within and across spontaneous reporting databases publication-title: Drug Saf doi: 10.1007/s40264-015-0289-5 – volume: 38 start-page: 1219 issue: 12 year: 2015 end-page: 1231 ident: CR7 article-title: Statistical signal detection as a routine pharmacovigilance practice: effects of periodicity and resignalling criteria on quality and workload publication-title: Drug Saf doi: 10.1007/s40264-015-0345-1 – volume: 2020 start-page: 479 issue: 43 year: 2023 end-page: 487 ident: CR1 article-title: Disproportionality analysis for pharmacovigilance signal detection in small databases or subsets: recommendations for limiting false positive associations publication-title: Drug Saf doi: 10.1007/s40264-020-00911-w.Accessed06Jun – year: 2022 ident: CR4 article-title: Combining a pharmacological network model with a Bayesian signal detection algorithm to improve the detection of adverse drug events publication-title: Front Pharmacol doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.773135 – volume: 93 start-page: 539 issue: 6 year: 2013 end-page: 546 ident: CR9 article-title: Performance of pharmacovigilance signal-detection algorithms for the FDA adverse event reporting system publication-title: Clin Pharmacol Ther doi: 10.1038/clpt.2013.24 – ident: CR3 – volume: 39 start-page: 469 year: 2016 end-page: 490 ident: CR8 article-title: Good signal detection practices: evidence from IMI PROTECT publication-title: Drug Saf doi: 10.1007/s40264-016-0405-1 – volume: 28 issue: 13 year: 2022 ident: CR6 article-title: Antifungal drugs and drug-induced liver injury: a real-world study leveraging the FDA adverse event reporting system database publication-title: Front Pharmacol doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.891336 – volume: 13 start-page: 519 issue: 8 year: 2004 end-page: 523 ident: CR5 article-title: The reporting odds ratio and its advantages over the proportional reporting ratio publication-title: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf doi: 10.1002/pds.1001 – ident: CR10 – volume: 28 issue: 13 year: 2022 ident: 530_CR6 publication-title: Front Pharmacol doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.891336 – ident: 530_CR10 doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.eval4nlp-1.9 – volume: 38 start-page: 577 year: 2015 ident: 530_CR2 publication-title: Drug Saf doi: 10.1007/s40264-015-0289-5 – year: 2022 ident: 530_CR4 publication-title: Front Pharmacol doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.773135 – volume: 13 start-page: 519 issue: 8 year: 2004 ident: 530_CR5 publication-title: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf doi: 10.1002/pds.1001 – volume: 93 start-page: 539 issue: 6 year: 2013 ident: 530_CR9 publication-title: Clin Pharmacol Ther doi: 10.1038/clpt.2013.24 – ident: 530_CR3 – volume: 38 start-page: 1219 issue: 12 year: 2015 ident: 530_CR7 publication-title: Drug Saf doi: 10.1007/s40264-015-0345-1 – volume: 2020 start-page: 479 issue: 43 year: 2023 ident: 530_CR1 publication-title: Drug Saf doi: 10.1007/s40264-020-00911-w.Accessed06Jun – volume: 39 start-page: 469 year: 2016 ident: 530_CR8 publication-title: Drug Saf doi: 10.1007/s40264-016-0405-1 |
| SSID | ssib023388677 ssj0061373 |
| Score | 2.3138063 |
| Snippet | Introduction
Several quantitative methods have been established, in pharmacovigilance, to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) from databases... Several quantitative methods have been established, in pharmacovigilance, to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) from databases containing... Introduction Several quantitative methods have been established, in pharmacovigilance, to detect signals of disproportionate reporting (SDRs) from databases... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed crossref springer |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 321 |
| SubjectTerms | Accuracy Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems - statistics & numerical data Algorithms Artificial intelligence Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedicine Databases, Factual Decision Trees Drug Industry - standards Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions - epidemiology Humans Machine Learning Methods Original Research Article Pharmaceutical industry Pharmaceutical Sciences/Technology Pharmacology/Toxicology Pharmacotherapy Pharmacovigilance Proprietary Regulatory agencies |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: SpringerLINK Contemporary 1997-Present dbid: RSV link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Lb9QwELZQ4cCF92OhRUZCvbCW4sSJE26rlooDVCvtquotmvhRVipJm02R8u8ZO05WVQEJzpk4jj2eh2fmG0I-pFVkM6EiZrOqQgcliRgoqZkF0Ebo2EQ-Ynr2VZ6e5ufnxTIUhW3HbPcxJOkl9VTshp5OETHUKcxxTsTQ57mfOrQZ56OvzkYuitHpGkDaBnmM-srHmTlHfwmN_TSUzvx-zNvq6Y7NeSde6tXQyeP_-4En5FEwO-li4JOn5J6pn5HD5YBb3c_peleGtZ3TQ7rcIVr3z8m1M0k9ojOOsdpcuKGOTeezuGq6uLxo2k33_Qfd1HQF1nQ9PYYOPtEFXbYNTtJ00Pb0m29WTY9C1jvtGhoah_R0FW40AtH2BVmffF4ffWGhVwNTiUw7BpVMMwlGV7FQPFKiksZYW-WgY9CFkcgACW6OyTUaGDZSztODolA5N4Bi5SXZq5vavCZU5FkhjMyVtVqkaQxcJhkkXHOVKcj5jPBxh0oVcMxdO43LckJg9gtd4kKXfqFLfOfj9M7VgOLxV-r9cePLcKK3ZeJaAfBUimJG3k-P8Sy6AAvUprlxNA5eT8ZCzsirgWGmzyXuyhgF5ozMR-7YDf7nubz5N_K35GHsGczlE--Tva69MQfkgfqJTNK-8-fkFy90CvU priority: 102 providerName: Springer Nature |
| Title | Statistical Signal Detection Algorithm in Safety Data: A Proprietary Method Compared to Industry Standard Methods |
| URI | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40290-024-00530-1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39003400 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3085715749 https://www.proquest.com/docview/3079957247 |
| Volume | 38 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos001270778900002&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Health & Medical Collection customDbUrl: eissn: 1179-1993 dateEnd: 20241213 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0061373 issn: 1178-2595 databaseCode: 7X7 dateStart: 20080501 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Central customDbUrl: eissn: 1179-1993 dateEnd: 20241213 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0061373 issn: 1178-2595 databaseCode: BENPR dateStart: 20080501 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVAVX databaseName: SpringerLINK Contemporary 1997-Present customDbUrl: eissn: 1179-1993 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0061373 issn: 1178-2595 databaseCode: RSV dateStart: 20080101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://link.springer.com/search?facet-content-type=%22Journal%22 providerName: Springer Nature |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1La9wwEB7apIde0neybRpUKLl0RS2_ZPdStnnQQ7OY7BL2ZmQ90kBqJ7tOwf--I1nrpYTm0ovAWE9mNA-N9A3Ax6QKTBrLgJq0qtBBiQIqJFfUCKF0rEIduIjpxQ8-nWaLRV74A7eVv1a5lolOUKtG2jPyz5GFYmcJj_OvN7fUZo2y0VWfQuMxbNu02ZbP-WJQpyG6Xz1cWy-ZUXO5iDNj6Dmh2Z_4RzTuKR36UXlAUWNRy5cBZX8rqnvW573IqVNIp8_-dynPYcebomTS884LeKTrl3BY9FjW3ZjMN0-zVmNySIoNynX3Cm6tmepQnrGP2dWl7epYt-5mV00m15c4YvvzF7mqyUwY3XbkWLTiC5mQYtngknQrlh05cwmsyZG_CU_ahvhkIh2Z-VMOX2n1GuanJ_Oj79Tnb6Ay4klLRcWTlAutqjCWLJBxxbU2psqECoXKNUemiJBMOlNodJhAWu9P5LnMmBYoat7AVt3Ueg9InKV5rHkmjVFxkoSC8SgVEVNMplJkbARsTatSemxzm2LjuhxQmR19S6Rv6ehbYptPQ5ubHtnjwdr7a1qWfpevyg0hR_Bh-I370wZdRK2bO1vHQu7xMOYj2O1ZZxgussfIKERHMF7z0qbzf8_l7cNzeQdPQ8fH9k7xPmy1yzv9Hp7I38gUywO3Q1yZHcD2t5NpcY5f0-IMy_PZxR8M-xnO |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V3fb9MwED6NDgle-A0rDDAS7IVGxI4TJ0gIlXXTpnVVRKtpb5HjONukkWxtBsofxf_I2UlaoYm97YHn2BfH-e7O57O_A3jvp24ecOU6eZCmGKB4riOVyJxcykzzjGnXZkyPxmIyCY-Po3gNfnd3Ycyxys4mWkOdlcrskX_yDBU79QWPvl5cOqZqlMmudiU0Glgc6PoXhmyLL_sj_L8fGNvdmW3vOW1VAUd5wq8cmQo_EFJnKeOKuoqnQus8T0OZMZlFWuBQvdRlOszQFeauMjGJjCIVUi1RAVDsHVjnHg_8Hqx_25nE3zsAM4z3Gn64xhWgq7QpbkoxVMM4w29v7di7exi4Ra6DLtIxiuA69G_PeG25ey1Vaz3g7sP_bO4ewYN2qU2GjW48hjVdPIGtuOHqrgdktrp6thiQLRKvWLzrp3BpluGWxRplTM9OjKiRruzJtYIMz0_wA6vTH-SsIFOZ66omI1nJz2RI4nmJM6grOa_JoS3QTbbbk_6kKklbLKUm03YXp220eAaz25iN59ArykJvAOFhEHEtQpXnGfd9JqnwAunRjKpAyZD2gXbQSFTL3W5KiJwnS9ZpC6cE4ZRYOCXY5-Oyz0XDXHJj680OOklrxRbJCjd9eLd8jPbHJJVkocsr08ZQCgrGRR9eNEhdvs4z2-ToJPow6KC7Ev7vsby8eSxv4d7e7HCcjPcnB6_gPrMqZM5Pb0Kvml_p13BX_USAzN-06kkguWVQ_wGW0HYH |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V3db9MwED-NDiFe-P4oDDAS7IVai_PlBAmhsq5i2qgiWqG9RY7tjEkj3doMlD-N_46z47RCE3vbA8-xL47zO5_P5_sdwJuo8Mo4lB4t46JAByXwqJBc0VIIpUPla89GTL8d8skkOTpKsw343eXCmGuV3ZpoF2o1l-aMfCcwVOws4mG6U7prEdlo_PHsnJoKUibS2pXTaCFyoJtf6L4tP-yP8F-_9f3x3mz3M3UVBqgMeFRTUfAo5kKrwg8l82RYcK3LskiE8oVKNcdhB4Xn60ShWSw9afwTkaYyYVqgMqDYG7DJA_R5erD5aW-Sfe3A7KPv13LFtWYBzaYNdzOGbhv6HJHL4LF5fOjEpR5Fc0mNUniU_W0lL219L4VtrTUc3_2P5_Ee3HFbcDJsdeY-bOjqAWxnLYd3MyCzdUrackC2SbZm924ewrnZnlt2a5QxPTk2oka6tjfaKjI8PcYPrL__ICcVmYpS1w0ZiVq8J0OSLeY4m7oWi4Z8sYW7ya7LACD1nLgiKg2ZutMd12j5CGbXMRuPoVfNK_0USJjEaah5IstShVHkC8aDWARMMRlLkbA-sA4muXSc7qa0yGm-YqO20MoRWrmFVo593q36nLWMJle23upglLvVbZmvMdSH16vHuC6ZYJOo9PzCtDFUg9wPeR-etKhdvS4wx-doPPow6GC8Fv7vsTy7eiyv4BYiOT_cnxw8h9u-1SZzrXoLevXiQr-Am_In4mPx0mkqgfyaMf0HTQZ-yg |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Statistical+Signal+Detection+Algorithm+in+Safety+Data%3A+A+Proprietary+Method+Compared+to+Industry+Standard+Methods&rft.jtitle=Pharmaceutical+medicine&rft.au=Bastos%2C+Eugenia&rft.au=Allen%2C+Jeff+K&rft.au=Philip%2C+Jeff&rft.date=2024-07-01&rft.pub=Springer+Nature+B.V&rft.issn=1178-2595&rft.eissn=1179-1993&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=321&rft.epage=329&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs40290-024-00530-1&rft.externalDBID=HAS_PDF_LINK |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1178-2595&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1178-2595&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1178-2595&client=summon |