Application of Association Rules Analysis in Mining Adverse Drug Reaction Signals

Abstract

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are increasingly becoming a serious public health problem. Spontaneous reporting systems (SRSs) are an important way for many countries to monitor ADRs produced in the clinical use of drugs, and they are the main data source for ADR signal detection. The traditional signal detection methods are based on disproportionality analysis (DPA) and lack the application of data mining technology. In this paper, we selected the spontaneous reports from 2011 to 2018 in Jiangsu Province of China as the research data and used association rules analysis (ARA) to mine signals. We defined some important metrics of the ARA according to the two-dimensional contingency table of ADRs, such as Confidence and Lift, and constructed performance evaluation indicators such as Precision, Recall, and F1 as objective standards. We used experimental methods based on data to objectively determine the optimal thresholds of the corresponding metrics, which, in the best case, are Confidence = 0.007 and Lift = 1. We obtained the average performance of the method through 10-fold cross-validation. The experimental results showed that F1 increased from 31.43% in the MHRA method to 40.38% in the ARA method; this was a significant improvement. To reduce drug risk and provide decision making for drug safety, more data mining methods need to be introduced and applied to ADR signal detection.

Adverse drug reaction signal detection methods in spontaneous reporting system: A systematic review

“…A total of 4197 literatures were identified through initial search. After selection, 93 literatures 4–8,11–98 met our inclusion criteria and were included, covering a period from 1998 to 2022. The literature screening process is shown in Figure 1.…”

“…The 93 included literatures contained 27 reviews 19,21,22,30,34,35,40–42,44,47,50,55–57,61,63,67,68,73,77,82,83,85,92,94,98 and 66 methodological studies 4–8,11–18,20,23–29,31–33,36–39,43,45,46,48,49,51–54,58–60,62,64–66,69–72,74–76,78–81,84,86–91,93,95–97 . Among them, 51 were from China, 18 were from America, 6 were from England, and 5 were from France.…”