IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/drugsa/v45y2022i5d10.1007_s40264-022-01169-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Black Swan Events and Intelligent Automation for Routine Safety Surveillance

Author

Listed:
  • Oeystein Kjoersvik

    (R&D IT, MSD)

  • Andrew Bate

    (Global Safety, GSK
    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
    Department of Medicine at NYU Grossman School of Medicine)

Abstract

Effective identification of previously implausible safety signals is a core component of successful pharmacovigilance. Timely, reliable, and efficient data ingestion and related processing are critical to this. The term ‘black swan events’ was coined by Taleb to describe events with three attributes: unpredictability, severe and widespread consequences, and retrospective bias. These rare events are not well understood at their emergence but are often rationalized in retrospect as predictable. Pharmacovigilance strives to rapidly respond to potential black swan events associated with medicine or vaccine use. Machine learning (ML) is increasingly being explored in data ingestion tasks. In contrast to rule-based automation approaches, ML can use historical data (i.e., ‘training data’) to effectively predict emerging data patterns and support effective data intake, processing, and organisation. At first sight, this reliance on previous data might be considered a limitation when building ML models for effective data ingestion in systems that look to focus on the identification of potential black swan events. We argue that, first, some apparent black swan events—although unexpected medically—will exhibit data attributes similar to those of other safety data and not prove algorithmically unpredictable, and, second, standard and emerging ML approaches can still be robust to such data outliers with proper awareness and consideration in ML system design and with the incorporation of specific mitigatory and support strategies. We argue that effective approaches to managing data on potential black swan events are essential for trust and outline several strategies to address data on potential black swan events during data ingestion.

Suggested Citation

  • Oeystein Kjoersvik & Andrew Bate, 2022. "Black Swan Events and Intelligent Automation for Routine Safety Surveillance," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 419-427, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:45:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s40264-022-01169-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s40264-022-01169-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40264-022-01169-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40264-022-01169-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karolina Danysz & Salvatore Cicirello & Edward Mingle & Bruno Assuncao & Niki Tetarenko & Ruta Mockute & Danielle Abatemarco & Mark Widdowson & Sameen Desai, 2019. "Artificial Intelligence and the Future of the Drug Safety Professional," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 491-497, April.
    2. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    3. Kristof Huysentruyt & Oeystein Kjoersvik & Pawel Dobracki & Elizabeth Savage & Ellen Mishalov & Mark Cherry & Eileen Leonard & Robert Taylor & Bhavin Patel & Danielle Abatemarco, 2021. "Validating Intelligent Automation Systems in Pharmacovigilance: Insights from Good Manufacturing Practices," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 261-272, March.
    4. I. Ralph Edwards, 2017. "Causality Assessment in Pharmacovigilance: Still a Challenge," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 40(5), pages 365-372, May.
    5. Peter M. Sandman & Paul M. Miller & Branden B. Johnson & Neil D. Weinstein, 1993. "Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 585-598, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ghobakhloo, Morteza & Asadi, Shahla & Iranmanesh, Mohammad & Foroughi, Behzad & Mubarak, Muhammad Faraz & Yadegaridehkordi, Elaheh, 2023. "Intelligent automation implementation and corporate sustainability performance: The enabling role of corporate social responsibility strategy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    2. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    3. Katherine A. McComas, 2003. "Public Meetings and Risk Amplification: A Longitudinal Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(6), pages 1257-1270, December.
    4. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    5. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    6. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    7. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    9. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    10. Matteo Iacopini & Carlo R.M.A. Santagiustina, 2021. "Filtering the intensity of public concern from social media count data with jumps," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1283-1302, October.
    11. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.
    12. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    13. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    14. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    15. Evangelia Karasmanaki & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Spyridon Galatsidas & Georgios Tsantopoulos, 2023. "Satisfaction with Media Information about Renewable Energy Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.
    16. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    17. Kévin Nadarajah & Laurent Brun & Stéphanie Bordel & Emeline Ah-Tchine & Anissa Dumesnil & Antoine Marques Mourato & Jacques Py & Laurent Jammes & Xavier Arnauld De Sartre & Alain Somat, 2024. "A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO 2 Geological Storage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, February.
    18. Anders A F Wahlberg & Lennart Sjoberg, 2000. "Risk perception and the media," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 31-50, January.
    19. Paul Slovic & James Flynn & Robin Gregory, 1994. "Stigma Happens: Social Problems in the Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 773-777, October.
    20. Harry Otway & Brian Wynne, 1989. "Risk Communication: Paradigm and Paradox," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 141-145, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:drugsa:v:45:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s40264-022-01169-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40264 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.