Natural Language Processing for EHR-Based Pharmacovigilance: A Structured Review
Abstract
The goal of pharmacovigilance is to detect, monitor, characterize and prevent adverse drug events (ADEs) with pharmaceutical products. This article is a comprehensive structured review of recent advances in applying natural language processing (NLP) to electronic health record (EHR) narratives for pharmacovigilance. We review methods of varying complexity and problem focus, summarize the current state-of-the-art in methodology advancement, discuss limitations and point out several promising future directions. The ability to accurately capture both semantic and syntactic structures in clinical narratives becomes increasingly critical to enable efficient and accurate ADE detection. Significant progress has been made in algorithm development and resource construction since 2000. Since 2012, statistical analysis and machine learning methods have gained traction in automation of ADE mining from EHR narratives. Current state-of-the-art methods for NLP-based ADE detection from EHRs show promise regarding their integration into production pharmacovigilance systems. In addition, integrating multifaceted, heterogeneous data sources has shown promise in improving ADE detection and has become increasingly adopted. On the other hand, challenges and opportunities remain across the frontier of NLP application to EHR-based pharmacovigilance, including proper characterization of ADE context, differentiation between off- and on-label drug-use ADEs, recognition of the importance of polypharmacy-induced ADEs, better integration of heterogeneous data sources, creation of shared corpora, and organization of shared-task challenges to advance the state-of-the-art.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Awareness of drug interaction effects is a difficult and growing issue, particularly in geriatrics.
“Awareness of drug interaction effects is a difficult and growing issue181–184, particularly in geriatrics, which gave rise to Beer’s criteria185.”
From Multimodal machine learning in precision health: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [182]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 112 · Cited by 200
- Authors
- Luo, Y., Thompson, W. K., Herr, T. M., Zeng, Z., Berendsen, M. A., Jonnalagadda, S. R., Carson, M. B., & Starren, J.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Luo, Yuan
- ORCID
- Venue
- Drug Safety
- Published
- 2017-06-22
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1075-1089
- ISSN
- 0114-5916 (ISSN-L)
- 1179-1942
- OpenAlex
- W2651948199
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 112
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 2.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- AbbVie
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- pharmacovigilance, adverse drug event detection, electronic health records, clinical text, natural language processing, heterogeneous data integration, off-label drug use, polypharmacy
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Natural Language Processing, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems, Electronic Health Records, Pharmacovigilance, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
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