ABSTRACT
Introduction Drug safety research asks causal questions but relies on observational data. Confounding bias threatens the reliability of studies using such data. The successful control of confounding requires knowledge of variables called confounders affecting both the exposure and outcome of interest. Causal knowledge of dynamic biological systems is complex and challenging. Fortunately, computable knowledge mined from the literature may hold clues about confounders. In this paper, we tested the hypothesis that incorporating literature-derived confounders can improve causal inference from observational data.
Methods We introduce two methods (semantic vector-based and string-based confounder search) that query literature-derived information for confounder candidates to control, using SemMedDB, a database of computable knowledge mined from the biomedical literature. These methods search SemMedDB for confounders by applying semantic constraint search for indications treated by the drug (exposure), that are also known to cause the adverse event (outcome). We then include the literature-derived confounder candidates in statistical and causal models derived from free-text clinical notes. For evaluation, we use a reference dataset widely used in drug safety containing labeled pairwise relationships between drugs and adverse events and attempt to rediscover these relationships from a corpus of 2.2M NLP-processed free-text clinical notes. We employ standard adjustment and causal inference procedures to predict and estimate causal effects by informing the models with varying numbers of literature-derived confounders and instantiating the exposure, outcome, and confounder variables in the models with dichotomous EHR-derived data. Finally, we compare the results from applying these procedures with naive measures of association (χ2 and reporting odds ratio) and with each other.
Results and Conclusions We found semantic vector-based search to be superior to string-based search at reducing confounding bias. However, the effect of including more rather than fewer literature-derived confounders was inconclusive. We recommend using targeted learning estimation methods that can address treatment-confounder feedback, where confounders that also behave as intermediate variables, and engaging subject-matter experts to adjudicate the handling of problematic confounders.
Highlights
Drug safety research asks causal questions but must rely on observational data
We explore searching literature-derived computable knowledge to elucidate confounders
To identify confounders, we search for common causes relative to a drug and an adverse event
We test search, modeling, and inference procedures on EHR data to detect genuine adverse events
Semantic vector-based search performed better overall than string-based confounder search.
- Confounding bias
- Confounder selection
- Causal inference
- Electronic health records
- Pharmacovigilance
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by the US National Library of Medicine grants: R01 LM011563, 2 T15 LM007093$-$26, 5 T15 LM007059$-$32, NIH/BD2K supplement R01 LM011563$-$02S1, NCATS Grant U54 TR002804, Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) Precision Oncology Decision Support Core RP150535, and CPRIT Data Science and Informatics Core for Cancer Research (RP170668).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
University of Texas and University of Pittsburgh IRBs.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
✉ sam413{at}pitt.edu (S.A. Malec)
- correction of typos
Data Availability
Following IRB approval and a data usage agreement, we obtained permission to use the EHR data for this study. These data require approval to access. However, we have included the models and other analytic data from this project.
