Usefulness of Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System for Machine-Learning Based Vaccine Research: A Case Study for COVID-19 Vaccines
Usefulness of Vaccine-Adverse Event-Reporting System (VAERS) data and protocols required for statistical analyses were pinpointed with a set of recommendations for the application of machine learning modeling or exploratory analyses on VAERS data with a case study of COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTe...
Saved in:
Published in | International journal of molecular sciences Vol. 23; no. 15; p. 8235 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Switzerland
MDPI AG
26.07.2022
MDPI |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Usefulness of Vaccine-Adverse Event-Reporting System (VAERS) data and protocols required for statistical analyses were pinpointed with a set of recommendations for the application of machine learning modeling or exploratory analyses on VAERS data with a case study of COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Janssen). A total of 262,454 duplicate reports (29%) from 905,976 reports were identified, which were merged into a total of 643,522 distinct reports. A customized online survey was also conducted providing 211 reports. A total of 20 highest reported adverse events were first identified. Differences in results after applying various machine learning algorithms (association rule mining, self-organizing maps, hierarchical clustering, bipartite graphs) on VAERS data were noticed. Moderna reports showed injection-site-related AEs of higher frequencies by 15.2%, consistent with the online survey (12% higher reporting rate for pain in the muscle for Moderna compared to Pfizer-BioNTech). AEs {headache, pyrexia, fatigue, chills, pain, dizziness} constituted >50% of the total reports. Chest pain in male children reports was 295% higher than in female children reports. Penicillin and sulfa were of the highest frequencies (22%, and 19%, respectively). Analysis of uncleaned VAERS data demonstrated major differences from the above (7% variations). Spelling/grammatical mistakes in allergies were discovered (e.g., ~14% reports with incorrect spellings for penicillin). |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1422-0067 1661-6596 1422-0067 |
DOI: | 10.3390/ijms23158235 |