Accuracy and teachability of artificial intelligence chatbots in solving pharmaceutical calculations: a descriptive study
Abstract
Background Pharmaceutical calculations are required elements of the Doctor of Pharmacy curriculum in the United States. With the growth of artificial intelligence chatbots, pharmacists and educators are exploring their application. The accuracy of artificial intelligence chatbots in performing pharmaceutical calculations remains unknown.Aim To evaluate the accuracy of artificial intelligence chatbots for pharmaceutical calculations.Method Eleven free-access chatbots were tested using 7 faculty-generated questions: 1 control, 2 creatinine clearance, 1 oral to intravenous dose conversion, 2 antibiotic pharmacokinetic dosing, and 1 number needed to harm. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the primary outcome, which was proportion of correct responses. Secondary outcomes included types of errors and teachability.Results Ten (90.9%) chatbots answered the control question correctly, and all answered the dose conversion question correctly. Eight (72.7%) chatbots correctly calculated number needed to harm. Only 1 (9.1%) provided the correct antibiotic dosing, and none correctly calculated creatinine clearance. Common errors included incorrect weight selection for creatinine clearance and use of incorrect formulas. Nine (81.8%) chatbots were teachable on at least 1 question.Conclusion Artificial intelligence chatbots demonstrated limited accuracy for multi-step pharmaceutical calculations and may be more reliable for low complexity calculations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
One study reported poor performance for GPT-4 in adverse drug causality tasks, with acceptable performance in providing medication information.
“One study reported poor performance for GPT-4 in adverse drug causality tasks, with acceptable performance in providing medication information.65”
From Large Language Models in Pharmacist-Led Direct Patient Care: A Rapid Review of Published Evaluations (2026) · cites this paper as [65]
Some studies in this review used de-identified data to evaluate the LLMs.
“Some studies in this review also used de-identified data to evaluate the LLMs, 30,61,65”
From Large Language Models in Pharmacist-Led Direct Patient Care: A Rapid Review of Published Evaluations (2026) · cites this paper as [65]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 5
- Authors
- Campbell, N., & Kalabalik-Hoganson, J.
- Affiliations
- Fairleigh Dickinson University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Campbell, Nicole
- Venue
- International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
- Published
- 2025-06-10
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1109-1113
- ISSN
- 2210-7703 (ISSN-L)
- 2210-7711
- OpenAlex
- W4411180837
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 1.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Keywords
- AI chatbots, medication calculation, chatbot accuracy, teachability, pharmacy education, creatinine clearance, number needed to harm, calculation errors, pharmacy curriculum
- MeSH terms
- Generative Artificial Intelligence, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Artificial Intelligence, Curriculum, Education, Pharmacy, Humans, Medication Errors, Drug Dosage Calculations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review