Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42817723›Full record

ArticlePharmacotherapy2026

User Beware: Inaccuracy and Inconsistency of Large Language Models in Providing Precision Dosing Recommendations for Patients With Kidney Impairment-A Case Series.

H Rhodes Hambrick, Samuel Dubinsky, Danica Quickfall, Shannon Reinert, Sonya Tang Girdwood, Gideon Stitt

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmacotherapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

6 authors.

H Rhodes HambrickDivision of Nephrology, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1218-8293
Samuel DubinskyDepartment of Critical Care, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3847-4899
Danica QuickfallDepartment of Critical Care, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1984-6483
Shannon ReinertDivision of Nephrology and Hypertension, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5319-9052
Sonya Tang GirdwoodDivision of Translational and Clinical Pharmacology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7737-8499
Gideon StittDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5269-214X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEvidence-based dosing guidance for medications in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and receiving continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) is limited. Freely available large language models (LLMs) can generate confident, human-like outputs. The accuracy and reproducibility of LLMs in providing precision drug dosing recommendations in the setting of AKI and CKRT have not been evaluated.

objectivesWe sought to characterize literature concordance and internal consistency of LLM-generated dosing recommendations for cefepime and meropenem in patients with AKI and receiving CKRT.

methodsSix investigators queried the freely available versions of six LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, OpenEvidence, and Perplexity) from July to September 2025 using three standardized vignettes asking for dosing recommendations and rationale to meet prespecified pharmacodynamic targets: (i) adult with AKI not on dialysis receiving cefepime, (ii) child receiving CKRT and cefepime, and (iii) toddler receiving high-effluent CKRT and meropenem. To assess inter-iteration consistency, each investigator also prompted one LLM three times for each vignette. Responses were parsed for concordance with recommendations in primary literature. LLM "reasoning" was evaluated for use of pharmacokinetic (PK) equations, citation accuracy versus confabulation, acknowledgment of uncertainty, and recommendations for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for efficacy or safety.

resultsLLM-generated dosing recommendations varied widely. Mean concordance with literature-based recommendations was 63% (range: 28%-94%). LLMs produced variable responses to the same user upon multiple iterations, with variance in daily maintenance doses recommended ranging from 0 to 1000%. OpenEvidence universally cited relevant sources, whereas other LLMs leveraged sources inconsistently or confabulated them. Each recommended TDM, though only Claude consistently acknowledged its own uncertainty.

conclusionFreely available LLMs produce highly variable and often discordant antibiotic dosing recommendations for patients with AKI and receiving CKRT. Although valuable for hypothesis generation and literature retrieval, LLM outputs should not be used in isolation for drug dosing in critically ill patients with kidney dysfunction.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Dosage CalculationsLarge Language ModelsPrecision MedicineAdultCefepimeChildContinuous Renal Replacement TherapyCritical IllnessDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansInfantMeropenemReproducibility of ResultsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefepimeMeropenemacute kidney injuryartificial intelligencebeta lactamscontinuous kidney replacement therapylarge language modelspharmacokinetics

Identifiers

PMID42817723
PMCPMC13628145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.