Grouping the pharmacovigilance terms with a hybrid approach

Studies in Health Technology and Informatics

Volumn 180, Issue , 2012, Pages 235-239

  Dupuch, Marie ^a   Dupuch, Laëtitia ^b   Perinet, Amandine ^c   Hamon, Thierry ^c   Grabar, Natalia ^a  

^a UNIV LILLE   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PAUL SABATIER   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ PARIS 13   (France)

Author keywords

Adverse drug reaction reporting systems; Algorithms; Artificial intelligence; Automatic data processing; Controlled; Vocabulary

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DATA HANDLING; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS; SEMANTICS;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION (ADRS); AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; CONTROLLED; PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS; QUALITATIVE INFORMATION; REPORTING SYSTEMS; SEMANTIC RELATEDNESS; VOCABULARY;

PHARMACODYNAMICS;

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DATA BASE; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; DRUG TOXICITY; FACTUAL DATABASE; FRANCE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DATABASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG TOXICITY; FRANCE; HUMANS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PHARMACOVIGILANCE; VOCABULARY, CONTROLLED;

EID: 84870473250     PISSN: 09269630     EISSN: 18798365     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-101-4-235     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (28)

1. Brown E, Wood L & Wood S. (1999). The medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA). Drug Saf., 20(2), 109-17.
2. Almenoff JS, Tonning JM, Gould AL & al. (2005). Perspectives on the use of data mining in pharmacovigilance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf., 28, 981-1007.
3. Bailey S, Singh A, Azadian R & al. (2010). Prospective data mining of six products in the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System: disposition of events identified and impact on product safety profiles. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf., 33(2), 139-46.
4. Bate A, Lindquist M, Edwards I & al. (1998). A bayesian neural network method for adverse drug reaction signal generation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol, 54(4), 315-21.
5. Meyboom R, Lindquist M, Egberts A & Edwards I.(2002). Signal selection and follow-up in pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf, 25(6), 459-65.
6. Hauben M & Bate A. (2009). Decision support methods for the detection of adverse events in postmarketing data. Drug Discov Today, 14(7-8), 343-57.
7. Fescharek R, Kübler J, Elsasser U, Frank M & Güthlein P. (2004). Medical dictionary for regulatory activities (MedDRA): Data retrieval and presentation. Int J Pharm Med, 18(5), 259-269.
8. CIOMS (August 2004). Development and Rational Use of Standardised MedDRA Queries (SMQs): Retrieving Adverse Drug Reactions with MedDRA. Report of the CIOMS Working Group, CIOMS.
9. Alecu I, Bousquet C & Jaulent MC. (2008). A case report: using SNOMED CT for grouping adverse drug reactions terms. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak, 8(S1), 4.
10. Jaulent MC & Alecu I. Evaluation of an ontological resource for pharmacovigilance. In Stud Health Technol Inform, pages 522-6, 2009
11. Bousquet C, Henegar C, Lillo-Le Louët A & al. Implementation of automated signal generation in pharmacovigilance using a knowledge-based approach. Int J Med Inform, 74(7-8):563-71, 2005
12. Iavindrasana J, Bousquet C, Degoulet P & Jaulent MC. Clustering who-art terms using semantic distance and machine algorithms.In AMIA Annu Symp Proc, pages 369-73, 2006
13. Delamarre D, Lillo-Le Louët A, Guillot L & al. Documentation in pharmacovigilance: using an ontology to extend and normalize Pubmed queries. Stud Health Technol Inform2010: 518-22
14. Dupuch M, Bousquet C & Grabar N. Automatic creation and refinement of the clusters of pharmacovigilance terms. In ACM IHI 2012. To appear
15. Stearns M, Price C, Spackman K & Wang A. (2001). SNOMED clinical terms: overview of the development process and project status. In AMIA, p. 662-666.
16. NLM (2008). UMLS Knowledge Sources Manual. National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland. www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/.
17. Grabar N & Hamon T. (2010). Exploitation of linguistic indicators for automatic weighting of synonyms induced within three biomedical terminologies. In MEDINFO, p. 1015-9.
18. Fellbaum C. (1998). A semantic network of english: the mother of all WordNets. Computers and Humanities, EuroWordNet: a multilingual database with lexical semantic network, 32(2-3), 209-20.
19. Rada R, Mili H, Bicknell E & Blettner M. (1989). Development and application of a metric on semantic nets. IEEE Transactions on systems, man and cybernetics, 19(1), 17-30.
20. Zhong J, Zhu H, Li J & Yu Y. (2002). Conceptual graph matching for semantic search. In 10th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS, LNCS 2393, Springer Verlag, 92-106.
21. Leacock C. & Chodorow M. (1998). Combining local context and WordNet similarity for word sense identification. MIT Press, p. 305-32.
22. http://www.r-project.org
23. Tsuruoka Y, Tateishi Y, Kim JD & al. (2005). Developing a robust part-of-speech tagger for biomedical text. In LNCS, p. 7746:382-92.
24. Aubin S & Hamon T. (2006). Improving term extraction with terminological resources. In FinTAL, number 4139 in LNAI, p. 380-87.
25. Kleiber G & Tamba I. (1990). L'hyperonymie revisitée: inclusion et hiérarchie. Langages, 98: 7-32.
26. Partee BH. (1984). Compositionality. In Landman F. & Veltman F., editor, Varieties of formal semantics.
27. Jacquemin C. (1996). A symbolic and surgical acquisition of terms through variation. In Connectionist, statistical and symbolic Approaches to Learning for Natural Language Processing, p. 425-38.
28. Pearson R, Hauben M, Goldsmith D & al.(2009). Influence of the MedDRA hierarchy on pharmacovigilance data mining results. Int J Med Inform, 78(12), 97-103.