Unlocking the potential of advanced large language models in medication review and reconciliation: A proof-of-concept investigation
Open accessAbstract
Background: Medication review and reconciliation is essential for optimizing drug therapy and minimizing medication errors. Large language models (LLMs) have been recently shown to possess a lot of potential applications in healthcare field due to their abilities of deductive, abductive, and logical reasoning. The present study assessed the abilities of LLMs in medication review and medication reconciliation processes. Methods: Four LLMs were prompted with appropriate queries related to dosing regimen errors, drug-drug interactions, therapeutic drug monitoring, and genomics-based decision-making process. The veracity of the LLM outputs were verified from validated sources using pre-validated criteria (accuracy, relevancy, risk management, hallucination mitigation, and citations and guidelines). The impacts of the erroneous responses on the patients' safety were categorized either as major or minor. Results: In the assessment of four LLMs regarding dosing regimen errors, drug-drug interactions, and suggestions for dosing regimen adjustments based on therapeutic drug monitoring and genomics-based individualization of drug therapy, responses were generally consistent across prompts with no clear pattern in response quality among the LLMs. For identification of dosage regimen errors, ChatGPT performed well overall, except for the query related to simvastatin. In terms of potential drug-drug interactions, all LLMs recognized interactions with warfarin but missed the interaction between metoprolol and verapamil. Regarding dosage modifications based on therapeutic drug monitoring, Claude-Instant provided appropriate suggestions for two scenarios and nearly appropriate suggestions for the other two. Similarly, for genomics-based decision-making, Claude-Instant offered satisfactory responses for four scenarios, followed by Gemini for three. Notably, Gemini stood out by providing references to guidelines or citations even without prompting, demonstrating a commitment to accuracy and reliability in its responses. Minor impacts were noted in identifying appropriate dosing regimens and therapeutic drug monitoring, while major impacts were found in identifying drug interactions and making pharmacogenomic-based therapeutic decisions. Conclusion: Advanced LLMs hold significant promise in revolutionizing the medication review and reconciliation process in healthcare. Diverse impacts on patient safety were observed. Integrating and validating LLMs within electronic health records and prescription systems is essential to harness their full potential and enhance patient safety and care quality.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Prompt-session handling and parameter settings can influence the quality and consistency of LLM responses.
“as prompt-session handling and parameter settings can influence the quality and consistency of LLM responses.57,82,98”
From Large Language Models in Pharmacist-Led Direct Patient Care: A Rapid Review of Published Evaluations (2026) · cites this paper as [57]
The Discussion (Key findings) says responses were generally consistent across prompts, but it does not link that consistency to prompt-session handling or parameter settings. Searches for session handling, temperature and other settings found no passage assessing their effects on response quality or consistency. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 18
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- [2]Institute of Medicine Preventing medication errors 2006 National Academies Press Washington, DC
- [3]Patel E. Pevnick J.M. Kennelty K.A. Pharmacists and medication reconciliation: a review of recent literature Integr Pharm Res Pract 8 2019 39 45 31119096 PMC6500442
- [4]Shehab N. Lovegrove M.C. Geller A.I. Rose K.O. Weidle N.J. Budnitz D.S. US emergency department visits for outpatient adverse drug events, 2013-2014 JAMA 316 2016 2115 2125 27893129 PMC6490178
- [5]Redmond P. Grimes T.C. McDonnell R. Boland F. Hughes C. Fahey T. Impact of medication reconciliation for improving transitions of care Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8 2018 CD010791 PMC6513651 30136718
- [6]Griese-Mammen N. Schulz M. Böni F. Hersberger K.E. Medication review and medication reconciliation Alves da Costa F. van Mil J. Alvarez-Risco A. The pharmacist guide to implementing pharmaceutical care 2019 Springer Cham 10.1007/978-3-319-92576-9_7 · DOI
- [7]Medication errors The academy of managed care pharmacy Available at: https://www.amcp.org/about/managed-care-pharmacy-101/concepts-managed-care-pharmacy/medication-errors (Accessed on 12th May 2024) 24770440
- [8]Akhoon N. Precision medicine: a new paradigm in therapeutics Int J Prev Med 12 2021 12 34084309 PMC8106271
- [11]Spotnitz M. Idnay B. Gordon E.R. A survey of Clinicians’ views of the utility of large language models Appl Clin Inform 15 2024 306 312 38442909 PMC11023712
- [12]Raza M.M. Venkatesh K.P. Kvedar J.C. Generative AI and large language models in health care: pathways to implementation NPJ Digit Med 7 2024 62 38454007 PMC10920625
- [13]Liu Z. Wu Z. Hu M. Pharmacy GPT: the AI pharmacist Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.10432 · arXiv
- [23]Murugan M. Yuan B. Venner E. Empowering personalized pharmacogenomics with generative AI solutions J Am Med Inform Assoc 31 2024 1356 1366 38447590 PMC11105140
- [24]Jošt M. Kerec Kos M. Kos M. Knez L. Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation on medication errors at hospital discharge and healthcare utilization in the next 30 days: a pragmatic clinical trial Front Pharmacol 15 2024 1377781 PMC11007427 38606174
- [25]Griva K. Chua Z.Y. Lai L.Y. Xu S.J. Bek E.S.J. Lee E.S. Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation service for patients after discharge from tertiary hospitals to primary care in Singapore: a qualitative study BMC Health Serv Res 24 2024 357 38509565 PMC10956343
- [26]Pais C. Liu J. Voigt R. Gupta V. Wade E. Bayati M. Large language models for preventing medication direction errors in online pharmacies Nat Med 2024 10.1038/s41591-024-02933-8 PMC11186789 38664535 · DOI
- [27]Alrabiah Z. Alwhaibi A. Alsanea S. Alanazi F.K. Abou-Auda H.S. A National Survey of attitudes and practices of physicians relating to therapeutic drug monitoring and clinical pharmacokinetic service: strategies for enhancing Patient’s care in Saudi Arabia Int J Gen Med 14 2021 1513 1524 33935513 PMC8079248
- Authors
- Sridharan, K., & Sivaramakrishnan, G.
- Affiliations
- Arabian Gulf University (BH)
- Ministry of Health (BH)
- Corresponding author
- Sridharan, Kannan
- Venue
- Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-09
- Volume
- 15
- Pages
- 100492
- ISSN
- 2667-2766 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11385755
- OpenAlex
- W4401664916
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 1.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- large language models, medication review, medication reconciliation, medication errors, drug-drug interactions, therapeutic drug monitoring, pharmacogenomics, individualized drug therapy, patient safety, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, hallucinations, electronic health records
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