ArticleResearch square2026
Machine learning for medication error detection: a scoping review.
Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Medication errors remain a substantial public health concern, and existing measures, such as workforce training, have achieved only partial success. Advances in data availability and computational methods have led to increasing use of machine learning (ML) to support medication safety. This scoping review synthesizes and categorizes ML-based approaches to medication error detection or prediction. Materials and Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between 2015 and April 2025. Two reviewers independently performed study selection using predefined eligibility criteria, and data extraction followed a structured extraction framework. Results: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Two dominant ML pipelines were identified. Most studies focused on prescription-related errors, relying on structured clinical data and tree-based models. A smaller group addressed medication-administration errors using unstructured multimodal data, such as images or video, analyzed with neural networks and multi-stage detection pipelines. Discussion: ML shows substantial potential for medication error detection, particularly in prescription-focused workflows that align well with existing clinical processes. However, the evidence remains fragmented, with limited generalizability, inconsistent labeling, and scarce real-world evaluation. No studies addressed medication errors in clinical research settings, such as clinical trials, despite their distinct workflows and safety implications. Conclusion: Advancing ML-based medication error detection will require high-quality multicenter datasets, rigorous and transparent validation, and deeper exploration of underused data modalities, including free text.
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.