Confused drug names are a common cause of medication errors, and are related to look-alike and sound-alike drug names. For the problem of identifying confused drug name pairs, individual similarity measures are used between the drug names. In the state-of-art, a logistic regression with the standard learning algorithm has been used to combine individual similarity measures. However, only three similarity measures have been combined but the results of previous research do not outperform with a statistical significance to any individual measure. In addition, the problem of potential confused drug names pairs presents a high unbalanced distribution of dataset that it is a hard problem to supervised machine learning models. In this paper, an improved combined logistic regression measure based on 21 individual measures is presented with the standard learning algorithm. Also, we present an evolutionary learning method for a combined logistic regression measure that allows to learn an unbalanced dataset. According to the experimentation with a gold standard dataset, our proposed combined measures outperform previous research with a statistical significance to identify pairs of confused drug names. In addition, the rankings of individual and combined similarity measures are presented.
ASHP guidelines on preventing medication errors in hospitals, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy50 (1993), 305–314.
2.
G.W.Adamson and J.Boreham, The use of an association measure based on character structure to identify semanti-cally related pairs of words and document titles, Information storage and retrieval10 (1974), 253–260.
3.
A.Aneja, A.R.Patki and R.Kumbhalwar, Approximate proper name matching, 2007.
4.
L.-C.Chen, C.-H.Chen, H.-M.ChenandV.S. Tseng, Hybrid data mining approaches for prevention of drug dispensing errors, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems36 (2011), 305–327.
5.
M.R.Cohen, G.D.Domizio and R.E.Lee, The role of drug names in medication errors, Medication errors. Wahihg-ton, DC: The American Pharmacists Association (2007), 87–110.
6.
V.Craigle, MedWatch: The FDA safety information and adverse event reporting program, Journal of the Medical Library Association95 (2007), 224–225.
7.
E.de Andrade-Azevedo, T.Azevedo-Anacleto and M.Borges-Rosa, Nomes de medicamentos com grafia ou som semelhantes: Como evitar erros, Bol ISMP-Brasil3 (2014).
8.
B.K.Dixon, Similar drug names a growing cause of errors, Internal Medicine News41 (2008), 51–51.
9.
A.K.Elmagarmid, P.G.Ipeirotis and V.S.Verykios, Duplicate record detection: A survey, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering19 (2007).
10.
FDAPDUFA Pilot Project - Propietary Name Concept Paper2008
11.
FDAFDA and ISMP Work to Prevent Medication Errors2012
12.
FDAGuidance for industry. Contents of a complete submission for the evaluation of proprietary names, 2014.
13.
FDAPhonetic and Orthographic Computer Analysis (POCA) program2017
14.
T.Gadd, PHONIX: The algorithm, Program24 (1990), 363–366.
15.
B.H.Garcia, R.Elenjord, C.Bjornstad, K.H.Halvorsen, S.Hortemo and S.Madsen, Safety and efficiency of a new generic package labelling: A before and after study in a simulated setting, BMJ Quality & Safety26 (2017), 817–823.
16.
J.A.Gershman and A.D.Fass, Medication safety and phar-macovigilance resources for the ambulatory care setting: Enhancing patient safety, Hospital Pharmacy49 (2014), 363–368.
17.
K.A.Getz, S.Stergiopoulos and K.I. Kaitin, Evaluating the completeness and accuracy of MedWatch data, American Journal of Therapeutics21 (2014), 442–446.
18.
D.Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1989.
19.
S.Gupta, A.P.Srivastava and S. Awasthi, Fast and Effective Searches of Personal Names in an International Environment, International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineerinf and Managemenr1 (2014).
20.
R.Hicks, D.D.Cousins and R.L.Williams, Summary of information submitted to MEDMARX in the year 2002: The quest for quality, US Pharmacopeia, 2003.
21.
R.W.Hicks, S.C.Becker and D.D. Cousins, MEDMARX data report. A report on the relationship of drug names and medication errors in response to the Institute of Medicine's call for action, in Center for the Advancement of Patient Safety, US Pharmacopeia, Rockville, MD, 2008.
22.
J.H.Holland, Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: An introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence, MIT Press, 1992.
23.
D.W.Hosmer Jr, S.Lemeshow and R.X.Sturdivant, Applied logistic regression, John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
24.
G.Kondrak, N-gram similarity and distance, in: String processing and information retrieval, Springer2005, pp. 115–126.
25.
G.Kondrak and B.Dorr, Identification of confusable drug names: A new approach and evaluation methodology, in: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Geneva, Switzerland, 2004, p. 952.
26.
G.Kondrak and B.Dorr, Automatic identification of con-fusable drug names, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine36 (2006), 29–42.
27.
G.Kondrak and B.J.Dorr, A similarity-based approach and evaluation methodology for reduction of drug name confusion, in Albetta Univ Edmonton, 2003.
28.
L.Kovacic and C.Chambers, Look-alike, sound-alike drugs in oncology, Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice17 (2011), 104–118.
29.
B.L.Lambert, Predicting look-alike and sound-alike medication errors, American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy54 (1997), 1161–1171.
30.
B.L.Lambert, K.-Y.Chang and S.-J.Lin, Effect of orthographic and phonological similarity on false recognition of drug names, Social Science and Medicine52 (2001), 1843–1857.
31.
B.L.Lambert, S.-J.Lin, K.-Y.Chang and S.K.Gandhi, Similarity as a risk factor in drug-name confusion errors: Thelook-alike (orthographic) and sound-alike (phonetic) model, Medical Care37 (1999), 1214–1225.
32.
B.L.Lambert, C.Yu and M.Thirumalai, A system for multiattribute drug product comparison,Journal of Medical Systems28 (2004), 31–56.
33.
V.I.Levenshtein, Binary codes capable of correcting deletions insertions, and reversals, in: Soviet physics doklady, 1966, pp. 707–710.
34.
M.Mitchell, An introduction to genetic algorithms, Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England, Fifth printing, 1999.
35.
T.Nagata, M.Kimura and F.Tsuchiya, Similarity index for sound-alikeness of drug names with pitch accents, Procedia Computer Science35 (2014), 1519–1528.
36.
U.Pfeifer, T.Poersch, N.Fuhr and L. Vi, Searching Proper Names in Databases, in: HIM, Citeseer, 1995, pp. 259–275.
37.
J.J.Pollock and A. Zamora, Automatic spelling correction in scientific and scholarly text, Communications of the ACM27 (1984), 358–368.
38.
Z.Rahman and R.Parvin, Medication errors associated with look-alike/sound-alike drugs: A brief review, Journal of Enam Medical College5 (2015), 110–117.
39.
S.R.Schroeder, M.M.Salomon, W.L.Galanter, G.D.Schiff,A.J.Vaida, M.J.Gaunt, M.Bryson, C.Rash, S.Falck and B.L.Lambert, Cognitive tests predict real-world errors: The relationship between drug name confusion rates in laboratory-based memory and perception tests and corresponding error rates in large pharmacy chains, BMJ Quality & Safety26 (2016), 395–407.
40.
M.B.Shah, L.Merchant, I.Z.Chan and K.Taylor, Characteristics that may help in the identification of potentially confusing proprietary drug names, Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (2016), 2168479016667161.
41.
B.Teplitsky, Hazards of sound-alike look-alike drug names, California Medicine119 (1973), 62.
42.
P.L.Trbovich and S.Hyland, Responding to the challenge of look-alike, sound-alike drug names, BMJ Quality & Safety26 (2017), 357–359.
43.
USP, USP quality review (76). US Pharmacopeia2001.
44.
USP, USP Quality Review (79). US Pharmacopeia, 2004.
45.
R.A.Wagner and M.J.Fischer, The string-to-string correction problem, J ACM21 (1974), 168–173.
46.
WHO,Medication Without Harm Global Patient Safety Challenge on Medication Safety, 2017.
47.
J.Zobel and P.Dart, Phonetic string matching: Lessons from information retrieval, in: Proceedings of the 19th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, ACM, 1996, pp. 166–172.
