ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Large language models management of complex medication regimens: a case-based evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating uncertainty matters: Evaluating large language models for drug-drug interaction identification.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Putting the I in AML: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cells · 2026Review
- Large Language Model-Based Clinical Decision Support for Antibiotic Selection and Dose Recommendation in Hospitalized Patients With Pneumonia: Multicenter Retrospective Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models on the Turkish Pharmacy Specialty Examination: a comparative analysis of accuracy, confidence, and readability.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Don't stop the heart: a performance analysis of large language models and potassium dosing.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Large language model-augmented offline reinforcement learning framework for sepsis management in critical care.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- A context-augmented large language model for accurate precision oncology medicine recommendations.Cancer cell · 2026Article
- MedMatch: a first step for the automation of large language model performance benchmarking for medication-related tasks.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Rx-LLM: a benchmarking suite to evaluate safe large language model performance for medication-related tasks.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) have shown the ability to diagnose complex medical cases, but only limited studies have evaluated the performance of LLMs in the development of evidence-based treatment plans. The purpose of this evaluation was to test four LLMs on their ability to develop safe and efficacious treatment plans on complex patients managed in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: Eight high-fidelity patient cases focusing on medication management were developed by critical care clinicians including history of present illness, laboratory values, vital signs, home medications, and current medications. Four LLMs [ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT (GPT-4), Claude-2, and Llama-2-70b] were prompted to develop an optimized medication regimen for each case. LLM generated medication regimens were then reviewed by a panel of seven critical care clinicians to assess safety and efficacy, as defined by medication errors identified and appropriate treatment for the clinical conditions. Appropriate treatment was measured by the average rate of clinician agreement to continue each medication in the regimen and compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Clinicians identified a median of 4.1-6.9 medication errors per recommended regimen, and life-threatening medication recommendations were present in 16.3%-57.1% of the regimens, depending on LLM. Clinicians continued LLM-recommended medications at a rate of 54.6%-67.3%, with GPT-4 having the highest rate of medication continuation among all LLMs tested (p < 0.001) and the lowest rate of life-threatening medication errors (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Caution is warranted using present LLMs for medication regimens given the number of medication errors that were identified in this pilot study. However, LLMs did demonstrate potential to serve as clinical decision support for the management of complex medication regimens given the need for domain specific prompting and testing.
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.