Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37073184›Full record

ArticleCureus2023

The Capability of ChatGPT in Predicting and Explaining Common Drug-Drug Interactions.

Ayesha Juhi, Neha Pipil, Soumya Santra, Shaikat Mondal, Joshil Kumar Behera, Himel Mondal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Drug-drug interaction identification using large language models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ayesha JuhiPhysiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Deoghar, IND.
Neha PipilPharmacology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bilaspur, Bilaspur, IND.
Soumya SantraPharmacology, College of Medicine and JNM Hospital, Kalyani, IND.
Shaikat MondalPhysiology, Raiganj Government Medical College and Hospital, Raiganj, IND.
Joshil Kumar BeheraPhysiology, Dharanidhar Medical College, Keonjhar, Keonjhar, IND.
Himel MondalPhysiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar, Deoghar, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

adverse reactionsartificial intelligencechatgptdrug-drug interactiondrug interactionsexplaininglanguage modelpatient educationpredictingside effects

Identifiers

PMID37073184
PMCPMC10105894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.