Literature DB >> 15954077

Comparing data mining methods on the VAERS database.

David Banks1, Emily Jane Woo, Dale R Burwen, Phil Perucci, M Miles Braun, Robert Ball.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Data mining may enhance traditional surveillance of vaccine adverse events by identifying events that are reported more commonly after administering one vaccine than other vaccines. Data mining methods find signals as the proportion of times a condition or group of conditions is reported soon after the administration of a vaccine; thus it is a relative proportion compared across vaccines, and not an absolute rate for the condition. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) contains approximately 150 000 reports of adverse events that are possibly associated with vaccine administration.
METHODS: We studied four data mining techniques: empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM), lower-bound of the EBGM's 90% confidence interval (EB05), proportional reporting ratio (PRR), and screened PRR (SPRR). We applied these to the VAERS database and compared the agreement among methods and other performance properties, particularly focusing on the vaccine-event combinations with the highest numerical scores in the various methods.
RESULTS: The vaccine-event combinations with the highest numerical scores varied substantially among the methods. Not all combinations representing known associations appeared in the top 100 vaccine-event pairs for all methods.
CONCLUSIONS: The four methods differ in their ranking of vaccine-COSTART pairs. A given method may be superior in certain situations but inferior in others. This paper examines the statistical relationships among the four estimators. Determining which method is best for public health will require additional analysis that focuses on the true alarm and false alarm rates using known vaccine-event associations. Evaluating the properties of these data mining methods will help determine the value of such methods in vaccine safety surveillance. (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15954077     DOI: 10.1002/pds.1107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf        ISSN: 1053-8569            Impact factor:   2.890


  28 in total

1.  Potential use of data-mining algorithms for the detection of 'surprise' adverse drug reactions.

Authors:  Manfred Hauben; Sebastian Horn; Lester Reich
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

2.  What counts in data mining?

Authors:  Manfred Hauben; Vaishali K Patadia; David Goldsmith
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 5.606

3.  Gold standards in pharmacovigilance: the use of definitive anecdotal reports of adverse drug reactions as pure gold and high-grade ore.

Authors:  Manfred Hauben; Jeffrey K Aronson
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 5.606

4.  Effects of stratification on data mining in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

Authors:  Emily Jane Woo; Robert Ball; Dale R Burwen; M Miles Braun
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  Active computerized pharmacovigilance using natural language processing, statistics, and electronic health records: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Xiaoyan Wang; George Hripcsak; Marianthi Markatou; Carol Friedman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2009-03-04       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  Comparison of statistical signal detection methods within and across spontaneous reporting databases.

Authors:  Gianmario Candore; Kristina Juhlin; Katrin Manlik; Bharat Thakrar; Naashika Quarcoo; Suzie Seabroke; Antoni Wisniewski; Jim Slattery
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.606

7.  Fluvastatin and hepatic reactions: a signal from spontaneous reporting in Italy.

Authors:  Anita Conforti; Lara Magro; Ugo Moretti; Stefania Scotto; Domenico Motola; Francesco Salvo; Barbara Ros; Roberto Leone
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 5.606

8.  Improving reporting of adverse drug reactions: Systematic review.

Authors:  Mariam Molokhia; Shivani Tanna; Derek Bell
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-08-09       Impact factor: 4.790

9.  Performance of pharmacovigilance signal-detection algorithms for the FDA adverse event reporting system.

Authors:  R Harpaz; W DuMouchel; P LePendu; A Bauer-Mehren; P Ryan; N H Shah
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2013-02-11       Impact factor: 6.875

10.  Safety of 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine administration among pregnant women: Adverse event reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 2014-2017.

Authors:  Claudia S Landazabal; Pedro L Moro; Paige Lewis; Saad B Omer
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 3.641

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.