ArticleJAMIA open2026
Improving medication error classification using a reasoning large language model.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An informatics framework to harmonize electronic health record medication data for managed care analytics and artificial intelligence applications.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the performance of a reasoning large language model (LLM) in identifying medication errors in medical incident reports. Materials and Methods: OpenAI's O4-mini LLM was adapted using prompt engineering on 75 000 anonymized incident reports from the Västmanland region of Sweden (2019-2024). To guide the prompt design, we used a subset of 2434 reports, which were manually reclassified by pharmacists as medication-related or not. For validation, 200 reports (January 2024-March 2024) were independently classified by 2 pharmacists to establish a reference classification. Moreover, the LLM performed binary classification, with concordance rates measured against the expert consensus. Results: The LLM achieved a concordance rate of 96.0% (192/200; 95% CI, 92.3-98.3) with expert classification. Eight cases (4.0%) showed disagreements, primarily due to linguistic ambiguity or context-dependent interpretation. Five cases involved pharmacists classifying reports as non-medication-related, while the LLM classified them as medication-related, with the reverse in 3 cases. Subcategorization accuracy was 76.5%. Discussion: The LLM showed expert-level performance, outperforming existing automated methods. Thus, its integration into incident reporting systems might improve the efficiency, accuracy, and consistency of patient safety monitoring. Conclusion: This validated AI-driven method can be integrated directly into clinical informatics workflows, enabling healthcare organizations to rapidly and consistently identify medication errors, ultimately enhancing patient safety outcomes.
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.