Cited by 5Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcarePharmacy and Medical Practices

Identification of kidney-related medications using AI from self-captured pill images

Open access
Sheikh, Mohammad S., Dreesman, Benjamin, Barreto, Erin F., Thongprayoon, Charat, Miao, Jing, Suppadungsuk, Supawadee, Mao, Michael A., Qureshi, Fawad +4 more·2024·Renal Failure

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: ChatGPT, a state-of-the-art large language model, has shown potential in analyzing images and providing accurate information. This study aimed to explore ChatGPT-4 as a tool for identifying commonly prescribed nephrology medications across different versions and testing dates. METHODS: 25 nephrology medications were obtained from an institutional pharmacy. High-quality images of each medication were captured using an iPhone 13 Pro Max and uploaded to ChatGPT-4 with the query, 'What is this medication?' The accuracy of ChatGPT-4's responses was assessed for medication name, dosage, and imprint. The process was repeated after 2 weeks to evaluate consistency across different versions, including GPT-4, GPT-4 Legacy, and GPT-4.Ø. RESULTS: ChatGPT-4 correctly identified 22 out of 25 (88%) medications across all versions. However, it misidentified Hydrochlorothiazide, Nifedipine, and Spironolactone due to misreading imprints. For instance, Nifedipine ER 90 mg was mistaken for Metformin Hydrochloride ER 500 mg because 'NF 06' was misread as 'NF 05'. Hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg was confused with the 25 mg version due to imprint errors, and Spironolactone 25 mg was misidentified as Naproxen Sodium or Diclofenac Sodium. Despite these errors, ChatGPT-4 showed 100% consistency when retested, correcting misidentifications after receiving feedback on the correct imprints. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT-4 shows strong potential in identifying nephrology medications from self-captured images, though challenges with difficult-to-read imprints remain. Providing feedback improved accuracy, suggesting ChatGPT-4 could be a valuable tool in digital health for medication identification. Future research should enhance the model's ability to distinguish similar imprints and explore broader integration into digital health platforms.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0886022x.2024.2402075

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • ChatGPT-3.5 performed adequately in providing medication information but had poor performance in recognizing adverse drug reactions and on high-complexity tasks.

    “In other studies, ChatGPT-3.5 was reported to have performed adequately in providing medication information, 32,55 but had poor performance in J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f recognizing adverse drug reactions and similar poor performance on high-complexity tasks.55,91,92”

    From Large Language Models in Pharmacist-Led Direct Patient Care: A Rapid Review of Published Evaluations (2026) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Methods and Results assess ChatGPT-4’s identification of medications from pill images, not ChatGPT-3.5’s provision of medication information. A search for adverse drug reactions and high-complexity tasks found no passage assessing either; the Discussion’s comparison concerns ChatGPT-3 and ChatGPT-4 instead. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sheikh, M. S., Dreesman, B., Barreto, E. F., Thongprayoon, C., Miao, J., Suppadungsuk, S., Mao, M. A., Qureshi, F., Pham, J. H., Craici, I. M., Kashani, K. B., & Cheungpasitporn, W.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Cheungpasitporn, Wisit
Venue
Renal Failure
Published
2024-09-11
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
2402075-2402075
ISSN
  • 0886-022X (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-6049
OpenAlex
W4402460406
Cited by
5
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2
FWCI
0.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Renal Failure (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
Keywords
ChatGPT-4, drug identification, large language models, hydrochlorothiazide, nifedipine, spironolactone, model consistency, digital health
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Artificial Intelligence, Humans

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