ReviewPharmacy (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Large Language Models for Drug-Related Adverse Events in Oncology Pharmacy: Detection, Grading, and Actioning.
Review in Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of Large Language Models for Oncology Nursing Decision Support: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Opioid Safety Surveillance from Clinical Text: A Clinically Focused Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
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
Preventable medication harm in oncology is often driven by drug-related adverse events (AEs) that trigger order changes such as holds, dose reductions, delays, rechallenges, and enhanced monitoring. Much of the evidence needed to make these decisions lives in unstructured clinical texts, where large language models (LLMs), a type of artificial intelligence (AI), now offer extraction and reasoning capabilities. In this narrative review, we synthesize empirical studies evaluating LLMs and related NLP systems applied to clinical text for oncology AEs, focusing on three decision-linked tasks: (i) AE detection from clinical documentation, (ii) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade assignment, and (iii) grade-aligned actions. We also consider how these findings can inform pharmacist-facing recommendations for order-level safety. We conducted a narrative review of English-language studies indexed in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase. Eligible studies used LLMs on clinical narratives and/or authoritative guidance as model inputs or reference standards; non-text modalities and non-empirical articles were excluded. Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria. LLMs showed the potential to detect oncology AEs from routine notes and often outperformed diagnosis codes for surveillance and cohort construction. CTCAE grading was feasible but less stable than detection; performance improved when outputs were constrained to CTCAE terms/grades, temporally anchored, and aggregated at the patient level. Direct evaluation of grade-aligned actions was uncommon; most studies reported proxies (e.g., steroid initiation or drug discontinuation) rather than formal grade-to-action correctness. While prospective, real-world impact reporting remained sparse, several studies quantified scale advantages and time savings, supporting an initial role as high-recall triage with pharmacist adjudication. Overall, the evidence supports near-term, pharmacist-in-the-loop use of AI for AE surveillance and review, with CTCAE-structured, citation-backed outputs delivered into the pharmacist's electronic health record order-verification workspace as reviewable artifacts. Future work must standardize reporting and CTCAE/version usage, and measure grade-to-action correctness prospectively, to advance toward order-level decision support.
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.