Cited by 42Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsMachine Learning in HealthcareDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions

Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model for Detection of Allergic Reactions Using Safety Event Reports Across Hospitals

Open access
Yang, Jie, Wang, Liqin, Phadke, Neelam A., Wickner, Paige G., Mancini, Christian M., Blumenthal, Kimberly G., Zhou, Li·2020·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

Importance: Although critical to patient safety, health care-related allergic reactions are challenging to identify and monitor. Objective: To develop a deep learning model to identify allergic reactions in the free-text narrative of hospital safety reports and evaluate its generalizability, efficiency, productivity, and interpretability. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed hospital safety reports filed between May 2004 and January 2019 at Brigham and Women's Hospital and between April 2006 and June 2018 at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Training and validating a deep learning model involved extracting safety reports using 101 expert-curated keywords from Massachusetts General Hospital (data set I). The model was then evaluated on 3 data sets: reports without keywords (data set II), reports from a different time frame (data set III), and reports from a different hospital (Brigham and Women's Hospital; data set IV). Statistical analyses were performed between March 1, 2019, and July 18, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the precision-recall curve were used on data set I. The precision at top-k was used on data sets II to IV. Results: A total of 299 028 safety reports with 172 854 patients were included. Of these patients, 86 544 were women (50.1%) and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 59.7 (43.8-71.6) years. The deep learning model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.979 (95% CI, 0.973-0.985) and an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.809 (95% CI, 0.773-0.845). The model achieved precisions at the top 100 model-identified cases of 0.930 in data set II, 0.960 in data set III, and 0.990 in data set IV. Compared with the keyword-search approach, the deep learning model reduced the number of cases for manual review by 63.8% and identified 24.2% more cases of confirmed allergic reactions. The model highlighted important words (eg, rash, hives, and Benadryl) in prediction and extended the list of expert-curated keywords through an attention layer. Conclusions and Relevance: This study showed that a deep learning model can accurately and efficiently identify allergic reactions using free-text narratives written by a variety of health care professionals. This model could be used to improve allergy care, potentially enabling real-time event surveillance and guidance for medical errors and system improvement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.22836

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Medical datasets frequently suffer from imbalances in phenotypes, like rare diseases or serious clinical outcomes, and cohort identification.

    “Medical datasets also frequently suffer from imbalances in phenotypes, like rare diseases or serious clinical outcomes37, and cohort identification7.”

    From Probabilistic medical predictions of large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [7]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [23]Ginn R, Pimpalkhute P, Nikfarjam A, Mining Twitter for adverse drug reaction mentions: a corpus and classification benchmark. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Building and Evaluating Resources for Health and Biomedical Text Processing; May 21, 2014; Reykjavik, Iceland. Accessed January 1, 2019. http://www.nactem.ac.uk/biotxtm2014/papers/Ginnetal.pdf
  2. [28]Bahdanau D, Cho K, Bengio Y Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. Paper presented at: 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations; May 7-May 9, 2015; San Diego, California.
  3. [29]Yang Z, Yang D, Dyer C, He X, Smola AJ, Hovy EH Hierarchical attention networks for document classification. Paper presented at: 15th Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies; June 12-17, 2016; San Diego, California.
  4. [31]Paszke A, Gross S, Chintala S, Automatic differentiation in PyTorch. Paper presented at: NIPS Autodiff Workshop; December 9, 2017; Long Beach, California. Accessed January 1, 2019. https://openreview.net/pdf/25b8eee6c373d48b84e5e9c6e10e7cbbbce4ac73.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, J., Wang, L., Phadke, N. A., Wickner, P. G., Mancini, C. M., Blumenthal, K. G., & Zhou, L.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Yang, Jie
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2020-11-16
Volume
3
Issue
11
Pages
e2022836
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3102840478
Cited by
42
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology
  • Nvidia
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS025375)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI150295)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Keywords
allergic reactions, adverse drug reactions, deep learning, natural language processing, automated detection, patient safety, generalizability, interpretability, adverse event monitoring, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, United States
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Boston, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Hypersensitivity, Male, Middle Aged, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Patient Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review