Cited by 127Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsComputational Drug Discovery MethodsBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies

Knowledge graph prediction of unknown adverse drug reactions and validation in electronic health records

Open access
Bean, Daniel M., Wu, Honghan, Iqbal, Ehtesham, Dzahini, Olubanke, Ibrahim, Zina M., Broadbent, Matthew, Stewart, Robert, Dobson, Richard J. B.·2017·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Unknown adverse reactions to drugs available on the market present a significant health risk and limit accurate judgement of the cost/benefit trade-off for medications. Machine learning has the potential to predict unknown adverse reactions from current knowledge. We constructed a knowledge graph containing four types of node: drugs, protein targets, indications and adverse reactions. Using this graph, we developed a machine learning algorithm based on a simple enrichment test and first demonstrated this method performs extremely well at classifying known causes of adverse reactions (AUC 0.92). A cross validation scheme in which 10% of drug-adverse reaction edges were systematically deleted per fold showed that the method correctly predicts 68% of the deleted edges on average. Next, a subset of adverse reactions that could be reliably detected in anonymised electronic health records from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust were used to validate predictions from the model that are not currently known in public databases. High-confidence predictions were validated in electronic records significantly more frequently than random models, and outperformed standard methods (logistic regression, decision trees and support vector machines). This approach has the potential to improve patient safety by predicting adverse reactions that were not observed during randomised trials.

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 · 10.1038/s41598-017-16674-x

Cites

32 of 32 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bean, D. M., Wu, H., Iqbal, E., Dzahini, O., Ibrahim, Z. M., Broadbent, M., Stewart, R., & Dobson, R. J. B.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Dobson, Richard J. B.
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2017-11-27
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
16416-16416
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2769065924
Cited by
127
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (MR/K006584/1)
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • Wellcome Trust (MR/K006584/1)
  • Cancer Research UK
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0407-10314, 05/40/04, NF-SI-0616-10066)
  • British Heart Foundation
  • King's College London
  • University College London
  • Versus Arthritis
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K006584/1, K006584/1, MC_PC_13041)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Keywords
knowledge graphs, protein targets, drug indications, electronic health records, patient safety
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Humans, Prognosis, Reproducibility of Results, Databases, Factual, Knowledge Bases, Electronic Health Records, Public Health Surveillance, 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