ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2025
Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence platforms and drug interaction screening databases using real-world patient data.
Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Trip score - A three-pillar risk stratification model proposal for antibiotic and immunomodulator coadministration.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Evaluating a large language model (ChatGPT-5) for detecting potential drug-drug interactions in intensive care: a cross-sectional comparative study with a clinical decision support system.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The use of multiple medications increases the risk of harmful drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Conventional DDI screening databases vary in coverage and often trigger low-relevance alerts, contributing to alert fatigue. Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as potential tools for DDI identification, however, their performance compared to established databases using real-world patient data remains under-explored. Methods: In this exploratory study, we compared conventional database screening with LLM-based screening using anonymized medication lists from rheumatology patients. Lexicomp, Medscape and Drugs.com were used to compile a reference set of 204 clinically relevant interactions across 57 cases. Using identical prompts, we then queried ChatGPT, Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot for interactions potentially requiring pharmacists' intervention. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, precision and F1 score. Results: Compared to the reference set of 204 DDIs, ChatGPT identified 439, Gemini 1556, and Copilot 1813 potential interactions. While Gemini achieved the highest sensitivity (0.697), ChatGPT demonstrated higher specificity (0.868). All three platforms demonstrated low precision scores. Overall, ChatGPT achieved the highest performance by F1 score (0.2520), followed by Gemini (0.1933) and Copilot (0.1153). Our results suggest that no AI systems assessed achieve the required balance of precision and sensitivity for reliable clinical decision-making in DDI screening. Conclusion: Although LLMs show promise as complementary tools in DDI screening, as they proved effective in identifying true interactions, they generate clinically inaccurate information due to hallucinations, which limits their reliability as standalone screening tools. Consequently, while LLMs could support clinical pharmacists in polypharmacy management, their outputs must always undergo professional validation to ensure patient safety.
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.