ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2024
Unlocking the potential of advanced large language models in medication review and reconciliation: A proof-of-concept investigation.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Model-Informed Precision Dosing in Pediatric Patients: Current Software Tools and Bedside Guided Application.Paediatric drugs · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical-pharmacological medication reviews for insurants of a German statutory health insurance fund (Kaufmännische Krankenkasse (KKH)): a 5-year retrospective analysis (2019-2023).Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Machine learning for medication error detection: a scoping review.Research square · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-driven risk prediction of polypharmacy in older adults: current advances, clinical applications, and future perspectives.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Large Language Models for Adverse Drug Events: A Clinical Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Learnings from research on artificial intelligence enabled solutions in clinical pharmacy practice and education.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Patient agency and large language models in worldwide encoding of equity.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Review
- A scoping review on generative AI and large language models in mitigating medication related harm.NPJ digital 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Medication review and reconciliation is essential for optimizing drug therapy and minimizing medication errors. Large language models (LLMs) have been recently shown to possess a lot of potential applications in healthcare field due to their abilities of deductive, abductive, and logical reasoning. The present study assessed the abilities of LLMs in medication review and medication reconciliation processes. Methods: Four LLMs were prompted with appropriate queries related to dosing regimen errors, drug-drug interactions, therapeutic drug monitoring, and genomics-based decision-making process. The veracity of the LLM outputs were verified from validated sources using pre-validated criteria (accuracy, relevancy, risk management, hallucination mitigation, and citations and guidelines). The impacts of the erroneous responses on the patients' safety were categorized either as major or minor. Results: In the assessment of four LLMs regarding dosing regimen errors, drug-drug interactions, and suggestions for dosing regimen adjustments based on therapeutic drug monitoring and genomics-based individualization of drug therapy, responses were generally consistent across prompts with no clear pattern in response quality among the LLMs. For identification of dosage regimen errors, ChatGPT performed well overall, except for the query related to simvastatin. In terms of potential drug-drug interactions, all LLMs recognized interactions with warfarin but missed the interaction between metoprolol and verapamil. Regarding dosage modifications based on therapeutic drug monitoring, Claude-Instant provided appropriate suggestions for two scenarios and nearly appropriate suggestions for the other two. Similarly, for genomics-based decision-making, Claude-Instant offered satisfactory responses for four scenarios, followed by Gemini for three. Notably, Gemini stood out by providing references to guidelines or citations even without prompting, demonstrating a commitment to accuracy and reliability in its responses. Minor impacts were noted in identifying appropriate dosing regimens and therapeutic drug monitoring, while major impacts were found in identifying drug interactions and making pharmacogenomic-based therapeutic decisions. Conclusion: Advanced LLMs hold significant promise in revolutionizing the medication review and reconciliation process in healthcare. Diverse impacts on patient safety were observed. Integrating and validating LLMs within electronic health records and prescription systems is essential to harness their full potential and enhance patient safety and care quality.
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.