Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41425735›Full record

ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2025

Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence platforms and drug interaction screening databases using real-world patient data.

Bálint Márk Domián, Amir Reza Ashraf, András Tamás Fittler, Mátyás Káplár, Róbert György Vida

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Bálint Márk DomiánDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Amir Reza AshrafDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
András Tamás FittlerDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Mátyás KáplárInstitute of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary.
Róbert György VidaDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial intelligenceChatbotChatGPTClinical pharmacyCopilotDrug-drug interactionGeminiMedication reviewPatient safety

Identifiers

PMID41425735
PMCPMC12712589

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.