ArticleCureus2023
The Capability of ChatGPT in Predicting and Explaining Common Drug-Drug Interactions.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Applications and Concerns of ChatGPT and Other Conversational Large Language Models in Health Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Exploring the role of ChatGPT in patient care (diagnosis and treatment) and medical research: A systematic review.Health promotion perspectives · 2023Pooled it
- Comparative performance of large language models and Drugs.com versus Lexicomp for antiseizure medication drug-drug interactions: A cross-sectional study with iterative prompting analysis.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- Medicine digital transformation: evidence from Chinese physicians on generative artificial intelligence implementation and challenges.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- ChatGPT as a Tool for Perioperative Safety: Evaluating Drug Interaction Detection in Anesthetic Regimens.Cureus · 2026Article
- Drug-drug interaction identification using large language models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- AI-enabled language models (LMs) to large language models (LLMs) and multimodal large language models (MLLMs) in drug discovery and development.Journal of advanced research · 2025Review
- Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence platforms and drug interaction screening databases using real-world patient data.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Article
- HIV Prevention and Treatment Information from Four Artificial Intelligence Platforms: A Thematic Analysis.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Accuracy and Reliability of Responses Generated by Artificial Intelligence Related to Clinical Pharmacology.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Pharmacometrics in the Age of Large Language Models: A Vision of the Future.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Advantages and Limitations of ChatGPT in Healthcare: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2025Review
- Solvent Screening for Separation Processes Using Machine Learning and High-Throughput Technologies.Chem & bio engineering · 2025Review
- Summarizing Online Patient Conversations Using Generative Language Models: Experimental and Comparative Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Exploring potential drug-drug interactions in discharge prescriptions: ChatGPT's effectiveness in assessing those interactions.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence Models and Tools for the Assessment of Drug-Herb Interactions.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Performance of ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 in the Taiwan National Pharmacist Licensing Examination: Comparative Evaluation Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Assessing ChatGPT's Capability in Addressing Thyroid Cancer Patient Queries: A Comprehensive Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2025Article
- ChatGPT's Attitude, Knowledge, and Clinical Application in Geriatrics Practice and Education: Exploratory Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Observational
- Navigating the potential and pitfalls of large language models in patient-centered medication guidance and self-decision support.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can have serious consequences for patient health and well-being. Patients who are taking multiple medications may be at an increased risk of experiencing adverse events or drug toxicity if they are not aware of potential interactions between their medications. Many times, patients self-prescribe medications without knowing DDI. Objective The objective is to investigate the effectiveness of ChatGPT, a large language model, in predicting and explaining common DDIs. Methods A total of 40 DDIs lists were prepared from previously published literature. This list was used to converse with ChatGPT with a two-stage question. The first question was asked as "can I take X and Y together?" with two drug names. After storing the output, the next question was asked. The second question was asked as "why should I not take X and Y together?" The output was stored for further analysis. The responses were checked by two pharmacologists and the consensus output was categorized as "correct" and "incorrect." The "correct" ones were further classified as "conclusive" and "inconclusive." The text was checked for reading ease scores and grades of education required to understand the text. Data were tested by descriptive and inferential statistics. Results Among the 40 DDI pairs, one answer was incorrect in the first question. Among correct answers, 19 were conclusive and 20 were inconclusive. For the second question, one answer was wrong. Among correct answers, 17 were conclusive and 22 were inconclusive. The mean Flesch reading ease score was 27.64±10.85 in answers to the first question and 29.35±10.16 in answers to the second question, p = 0.47. The mean Flesh-Kincaid grade level was 15.06±2.79 in answers to the first question and 14.85±1.97 in answers to the second question, p = 0.69. When we compared the reading levels with hypothetical 6th grade, the grades were significantly higher than expected (t = 20.57, p < 0.0001 for first answers and t = 28.43, p < 0.0001 for second answers). Conclusion ChatGPT is a partially effective tool for predicting and explaining DDIs. Patients, who may not have immediate access to the healthcare facility for getting information about DDIs, may take help from ChatGPT. However, on several occasions, it may provide incomplete guidance. Further improvement is required for potential usage by patients for getting ideas about DDI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.