Dang, Yifang

Abstract Introduction COVID-19, a global health crisis, prompted rapid vaccine development. Bivalent vaccines by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna target both original and Omicron strains. Despite vaccination efforts, the persistence of adverse events underscores the importance of ongoing safety monitoring. Method We collected COVID-19 bivalent vaccine adverse event reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) (September 15, 2022, to September 1, 2023). The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) categorized reported symptoms into corresponding concepts. Statistical analyses included zero-truncated Poisson regression for estimating symptom rates, logistic regression for identifying risk factors, and Spearman correlation for assessing non-parametric relationships between adverse events in different System Organ Classes (SOCs). Results Our analysis of COVID-19 bivalent vaccine adverse events identified significant correlations between SOCs. Notably, a positive correlation (ρ = 0.3) linked Infections (SOC 1) with Respiratory disorders (SOC 13), while a negative correlation (ρ=-0.3) connected Investigations (SOC 23) with Injury (SOC 24). Zero-truncated Poisson modeling estimated an average of 6.179 symptoms per individual, varying by age, gender, and vaccine. Gender and age significantly influence reported adverse events associated with COVID-19 bivalent vaccines. Females generally experienced higher odds for most SOCs compared to males, except for cardiac and product-related issues. Older adults showed a higher likelihood of symptoms across various SOCs, while children and adolescents had distinct susceptibility patterns. Additionally, Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were associated with different SOCs, with Moderna linked mainly to immune and skin disorders and Pfizer associated primarily with cardiac and metabolic issues. Conclusion In conclusion, our study aligned self-reported items with widely-accepted medical terminology and rigorously analyzed adverse events following COVID-19 bivalent vaccine using advanced statistical methods. The significant findings provide crucial insights, guiding evidence-based strategies and interventions for vaccine safety.

Abstract Objectives Precise literature recommendation and summarization are crucial for biomedical professionals. While the latest iteration of generative pretrained transformer (GPT) incorporates 2 distinct modes—real-time search and pretrained model utilization—it encounters challenges in dealing with these tasks. Specifically, the real-time search can pinpoint some relevant articles but occasionally provides fabricated papers, whereas the pretrained model excels in generating well-structured summaries but struggles to cite specific sources. In response, this study introduces RefAI, an innovative retrieval-augmented generative tool designed to synergize the strengths of large language models (LLMs) while overcoming their limitations. Materials and Methods RefAI utilized PubMed for systematic literature retrieval, employed a novel multivariable algorithm for article recommendation, and leveraged GPT-4 turbo for summarization. Ten queries under 2 prevalent topics (“cancer immunotherapy and target therapy” and “LLMs in medicine”) were chosen as use cases and 3 established counterparts (ChatGPT-4, ScholarAI, and Gemini) as our baselines. The evaluation was conducted by 10 domain experts through standard statistical analyses for performance comparison. Results The overall performance of RefAI surpassed that of the baselines across 5 evaluated dimensions—relevance and quality for literature recommendation, accuracy, comprehensiveness, and reference integration for summarization, with the majority exhibiting statistically significant improvements (P-values <.05). Discussion RefAI demonstrated substantial improvements in literature recommendation and summarization over existing tools, addressing issues like fabricated papers, metadata inaccuracies, restricted recommendations, and poor reference integration. Conclusion By augmenting LLM with external resources and a novel ranking algorithm, RefAI is uniquely capable of recommending high-quality literature and generating well-structured summaries, holding the potential to meet the critical needs of biomedical professionals in navigating and synthesizing vast amounts of scientific literature.

Background The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) in conjunction with recent updates in dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) management guidelines emphasizes the necessity for innovative models to predict ischemic or bleeding events after drug‐eluting stent implantation. Leveraging AI for dynamic prediction has the potential to revolutionize risk stratification and provide personalized decision support for DAPT management. Methods and Results We developed and validated a new AI‐based pipeline using retrospective data of drug‐eluting stent‐treated patients, sourced from the Cerner Health Facts data set (n=98 236) and Optum's de‐identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (n=9978). The 36 months following drug‐eluting stent implantation were designated as our primary forecasting interval, further segmented into 6 sequential prediction windows. We evaluated 5 distinct AI algorithms for their precision in predicting ischemic and bleeding risks. Model discriminative accuracy was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, among other metrics. The weighted light gradient boosting machine stood out as the preeminent model, thus earning its place as our AI‐DAPT model. The AI‐DAPT demonstrated peak accuracy in the 30 to 36 months window, charting an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 90% [95% CI, 88%–92%] for ischemia and 84% [95% CI, 82%–87%] for bleeding predictions. Conclusions Our AI‐DAPT excels in formulating iterative, refined dynamic predictions by assimilating ongoing updates from patients' clinical profiles, holding value as a novel smart clinical tool to facilitate optimal DAPT duration management with high accuracy and adaptability.

Abstract Objective Social determinants of health (SDoH) play critical roles in health outcomes and well-being. Understanding the interplay of SDoH and health outcomes is critical to reducing healthcare inequalities and transforming a “sick care” system into a “health-promoting” system. To address the SDOH terminology gap and better embed relevant elements in advanced biomedical informatics, we propose an SDoH ontology (SDoHO), which represents fundamental SDoH factors and their relationships in a standardized and measurable way. Material and Methods Drawing on the content of existing ontologies relevant to certain aspects of SDoH, we used a top-down approach to formally model classes, relationships, and constraints based on multiple SDoH-related resources. Expert review and coverage evaluation, using a bottom-up approach employing clinical notes data and a national survey, were performed. Results We constructed the SDoHO with 708 classes, 106 object properties, and 20 data properties, with 1,561 logical axioms and 976 declaration axioms in the current version. Three experts achieved 0.967 agreement in the semantic evaluation of the ontology. A comparison between the coverage of the ontology and SDOH concepts in 2 sets of clinical notes and a national survey instrument also showed satisfactory results. Discussion SDoHO could potentially play an essential role in providing a foundation for a comprehensive understanding of the associations between SDoH and health outcomes and paving the way for health equity across populations. Conclusion SDoHO has well-designed hierarchies, practical objective properties, and versatile functionalities, and the comprehensive semantic and coverage evaluation achieved promising performance compared to the existing ontologies relevant to SDoH.

LINKED CONTENTThis article is linked to Wijarnpreecha et al and Huang & Nguyen papers. To view these articles, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16590 and https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16576

SummaryBackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated an association between nonselective beta‐blockers (NSBBs) and lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhosis. However, there has been no population‐based study investigating the risk of HCC among cirrhotic patients treated using carvedilol.AimsTo determine the risk of HCC among cirrhotic patients with NSBBs including carvedilol.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study utilised the Cerner Health Facts database in the United States from 2000 to 2017. Kaplan‐Meier estimate, Cox proportional hazards regression, and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to test the HCC risk among the carvedilol, nadolol, and propranolol groups compared with no beta‐blocker group.ResultsThe final cohort comprised 107 428 eligible patients. The 100‐month cumulative HCC incidence of NSBBs was significantly lower than the no beta‐blocker group (carvedilol (11.24%) vs no beta‐blocker (15.69%), nadolol (27.55%) vs no beta‐blocker (32.11%), and propranolol (26.17%) vs no beta‐blocker (28.84%) (P values < 0.0001). NSBBs were associated with a significantly lower risk of HCC (Hazard ratio: carvedilol 0.61 (95% CI 0.51‐0.73), nadolol 0.74 (95% CI 0.63‐0.87), propranolol 0.75 (95% CI 0.66‐0.84) after PSM in the multivariate cox analysis. In subgroup analysis, NSBBs reduced the risk of HCC in cirrhosis with complications and non‐alcoholic cirrhosis.ConclusionsNSBBs, including carvedilol, were associated with a significantly decreased risk of HCC in patients with cirrhosis when compared with no beta‐blocker regardless of complications status. Future randomised‐controlled studies comparing the incidence of HCC among NSBBs should elucidate which NSBB would be the best option to prevent HCC in cirrhosis.