ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Proposed Context-of-Use Evaluation Framework for Medication Management Tasks Completed by Generative Artificial Intelligence.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Standardized evaluation of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) for medication management is lacking. Given the potential lethality of medication errors endorsed or missed by AI, performance evaluation constructs are essential. The purpose of this evaluation was to develop a standardized grading framework for performance evaluation of medication management tasks. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was undertaken that included literature evaluation for standards and best practices of comprehensive medication management (CMM), panel discussions, and iterative application to set of cases. The goal was to develop a grading framework that effectively evaluated domains like safety, factuality, and clinical relevance that can be employed for a broad range of medication domains (i.e., electrolyte replacement, antibiotic selection). Inter-rater reliability with intraclass Krippendorff's Alpha was the primary outcome. Results: A total of 5 panelists developed the CMM Evaluation Framework, which includes 4 dimensions: safety, factuality, completeness, and preference. These dimensions are applied to three CMM skills: collecting patient data, analyzing information, and designing regimens. Each dimension is rated from 1-5. An additional dimension evaluated the presence of hallucinations and errors with high harm scores (i.e., "absolute failure" criteria regardless of an overall score). The Krippendorff's Alpha was highest in the medication therapy problem and medication therapy format categories, for 50 pneumonia cases, run in triplicate (150 total). Conclusions: This framework is informed by national standards for CMM and the healthcare professionals dedicated to the provision of this service. These domains allow for the possibilities of practice variation via the preference domain while also having strong guardrails against the commission of medication errors. Further analyses beyond pilot testing are necessary.
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.