Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41822611›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

When Silence Signals Safety: Governance and Responsibility in AI-Enabled Prescription Verification.

Esteban Zavaleta-Monestel, Jeaustin Mora-Jiménez, Sebastián Arguedas-Chacón

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Esteban Zavaleta-MonestelHealth Research Department, Hospital Clinica Biblica, San Jose, CRI.
Jeaustin Mora-JiménezHealth Research Department, Hospital Clínica Bíblica, San José, CRI.
Sebastián Arguedas-ChacónHealth Research Department, Hospital Clinica Biblica, San Jose, CRI.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly utilized to enhance prescription verification by screening medication orders, prioritizing pharmacist review, and, in certain implementations, suppressing or deprioritizing alerts deemed low risk. While these systems may improve efficiency and the detection of prescribing risks, they also introduce challenges related to clinician reliance, accountability, and system oversight. This editorial argues that AI-enabled prescription verification may shift, in settings where algorithmic triage or alert suppression is relied upon, safety from an active clinical judgment to a passive inference based on algorithmic silence, redistributing rather than eliminating medication safety risk. As a result, safety work transitions from preventing individual errors to maintaining vigilance through continuous monitoring and governance. Key issues discussed include automation bias, data drift and dataset shift, distributed clinical responsibility, and the limitations of traditional validation approaches, such as one-time pre-implementation testing, reliance on static performance metrics, and periodic audits. Addressing these challenges requires governance frameworks that clarify accountability, uphold human judgment, and support ongoing evaluation of AI systems in clinical practice. By framing prescription verification as a socio-technical activity rather than solely a technical function, this editorial advances the discourse on the responsible integration of AI into medication safety workflows.

Indexed as

artificial intelligence governanceautomation biasclinical decision supportmedication safetyprescription verification

Identifiers

PMID41822611
PMCPMC12978023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.