Although potential drug-drug interactions (PDDIs) are a significant source of preventable drug-related harm, there is currently no single complete source of PDDI information. In the current study, all publically available sources of PDDI information that could be identified using a comprehensive and broad search were combined into a single dataset. The combined dataset merged fourteen different sources including 5 clinically-oriented information sources, 4 Natural Language Processing (NLP) Corpora, and 5 Bioinformatics/Pharmacovigilance information sources. As a comprehensive PDDI source, the merged dataset might benefit the pharmacovigilance text mining community by making it possible to compare the representativeness of NLP corpora for PDDI text extraction tasks, and specifying elements that can be useful for future PDDI extraction purposes.
An analysis of the overlap between and across the data sources showed that there was little overlap. Even comprehensive PDDI lists such as DrugBank, KEGG, and the NDF-RT had less than 50% overlap with each other. Moreover, all of the comprehensive lists had incomplete coverage of two data sources that focus on PDDIs of interest in most clinical settings. Based on this information, we think that systems that provide access to the comprehensive lists, such as APIs into RxNorm, should be careful to inform users that the lists may be incomplete with respect to PDDIs that drug experts suggest clinicians be aware of. In spite of the low degree of overlap, several dozen cases were identified where PDDI information provided in drug product labeling might be augmented by the merged dataset. Moreover, the combined dataset was also shown to improve the performance of an existing PDDI NLP pipeline and a recently published PDDI pharmacovigilance protocol. Future work will focus on improvement of the methods for mapping between PDDI information sources, identifying methods to improve the use of the merged dataset in PDDI NLP algorithms, integrating high-quality PDDI information from the merged dataset into Wikidata, and making the combined dataset accessible as Semantic Web Linked Data.
IntroductionPrognostication in cancer is challenging and inaccurate. C-Reactive Protein (CRP), a cheap and sensitive marker of inflammation may help. This study investigated the relationship between CRP and prognosis in a large cohort of solid tumors with mixed cancer diagnoses and stages.MethodsElectronic medical records of 4931 adults with solid tumors who attended the Taussig Cancer Institute from 2006–2012 were reviewed. Demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded. Maximum CRP (mCRP) was identified for each individual. CRP was analysed as a time-dependent, continuous and categorical variable for association with survival.ResultsTwo thirds of patients had a high mCRP. This was consistently associated with shorter survival, even after correction for time from diagnosis, and when analysed as a continuous or a categorical variable. When mCRP values above 10 mg/L were subcategorized, a higher mCRP was always worse. Even among those with normal values, statistically and clinically significant shorter survival was noted at mCRP levels >5 mg/L.ConclusionsIn a large representative cohort of consecutive solid tumor patients the risk of death was clinically and statistically significantly greater with a high mCRP. This was independent of other variables and regardless of statistical method from both dates of diagnosis and test. CRP appeared to be underutilized. Our results support the routine use of CRP as a universal cost-effective independent prognostic indicator in most solid tumors.
The D3 system provides an early-warning framework for augmenting knowledge of known DDIs and deducing unknown DDIs. It shows promise in suggesting interaction pathways of research and evaluation interest and aiding clinicians in evaluating and adjusting courses of drug therapy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.