Cited by 26Topic ModelingDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and ProtectionPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

BERT-Based Natural Language Processing of Drug Labeling Documents: A Case Study for Classifying Drug-Induced Liver Injury Risk

Open access
Wu, Yue, Liu, Zhichao, Wu, Leihong, Chen, Minjun, Tong, Weida·2021·Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

Background & Aims: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates a broad range of consumer products, which account for about 25% of the United States market. The FDA regulatory activities often involve producing and reading of a large number of documents, which is time consuming and labor intensive. To support regulatory science at FDA, we evaluated artificial intelligence (AI)-based natural language processing (NLP) of regulatory documents for text classification and compared deep learning-based models with a conventional keywords-based model. Methods: FDA drug labeling documents were used as a representative regulatory data source to classify drug-induced liver injury (DILI) risk by employing the state-of-the-art language model BERT. The resulting NLP-DILI classification model was statistically validated with both internal and external validation procedures and applied to the labeling data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for cross-agency application. Results: The NLP-DILI model developed using FDA labeling documents and evaluated by cross-validations in this study showed remarkable performance in DILI classification with a recall of 1 and a precision of 0.78. When cross-agency data were used to validate the model, the performance remained comparable, demonstrating that the model was portable across agencies. Results also suggested that the model was able to capture the semantic meanings of sentences in drug labeling. Conclusion: Deep learning-based NLP models performed well in DILI classification of drug labeling documents and learned the meanings of complex text in drug labeling. This proof-of-concept work demonstrated that using AI technologies to assist regulatory activities is a promising approach to modernize and advance regulatory science.

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 · 10.3389/frai.2021.729834

Cites

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?

  • Use of standardized terminologies like MedDRA for AE extraction often led to missing some critical AEs because the FDA does not mandate MedDRA terminology in labeling.

    “some studies applied standardized terminologies like MedDRA for AE extraction, but this often led to missing some critical AEs, as the FDA does not mandate the use of MedDRA terminology in labeling [6, 19].”

    From Leveraging FDA Labeling Documents and Large Language Model to Enhance Annotation, Profiling, and Classification of Drug Adverse Events with AskFDALabel (2025) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Discussion says MedDRA terms have many variants in drug labeling, and the Results report four false negatives from a keyword-based DILI classifier. This supports the concern that term-based extraction can miss adverse reactions. The paper does not say the FDA does not mandate MedDRA terminology or establish that this is why those cases were missed. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • AskFDALabel's DILI classification outperformed previous BERT- and keyword-based DILI classification results, even without training a predictive model.

    “This result outperformed previous Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT)- and keyword-based DILI classification results, even without the needs of training a predictive model [19, 30].”

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 26

Authors
Wu, Y., Liu, Z., Wu, L., Chen, M., & Tong, W.
Affiliations
National Center for Toxicological Research (US)
Corresponding author
  • Chen, Minjun
  • Tong, Weida
Venue
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Published
2021-12-06
Volume
4
Pages
729834-729834
ISSN
2624-8212 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4200098147
Cited by
26
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (E0767701)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
drug-induced liver injury, BERT, text classification, regulatory science, European Medicines Agency

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