Cited by 11Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesElectronic Health Records Systems

Evaluation of large language models’ ability to identify clinically relevant drug-drug interactions and generate high-quality clinical pharmacotherapy recommendations

Chase, Aaron, Most, Amoreena, Sikora, Andrea, Smith, Susan E, Devlin, John W, Xu, Shaochen, Liu, Tianming, Murray, Brian·2026·American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

Abstract

Purpose Large language models (LLMs) are promising artificial intelligence (AI) tools to support clinical decision-making. The ability of LLMs to evaluate medication regimens, identify drug-drug interactions (DDIs), and provide clinical recommendations has undergone limited evaluation. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of 3 LLMs in recognizing DDIs, determining clinical relevance, and generating management recommendations. Methods A total of 15 patient cases with medication regimens were created; each contained a commonly encountered DDI. Two separate study phases were developed: (1) DDI identification and determination of clinical relevance; and (2) DDI identification and generation of a clinical recommendation. The primary outcome was the ability of the LLMs (GPT-4, Gemini 1.5, and Claude 3) to identify the DDI within each medication regimen. Secondary outcomes included the ability of the LLMs to identify the clinical relevance of each DDI and generate a recommendation of high quality relative to ground truth. Results Claude 3 identified all DDIs, followed by GPT-4 (14/15, 93.3%) and Gemini 1.5 (12/15, 80.0%). All LLMs were significantly more likely than clinical experts to categorize the DDI as clinically relevant (P Conclusion While LLMs demonstrate promising potential to identify DDIs, application to clinical cases requires ongoing development. Findings from this study may assist in future development and refinement of LLMs for clinical decision-ma…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ajhp/zxaf168

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chase, A., Most, A., Sikora, A., Smith, S. E., Devlin, J. W., Xu, S., Liu, T., & Murray, B.
Affiliations
  • Augusta University Health (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy , Aurora, CO ,
Venue
American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy
Published
2025-07-01
Volume
83
Issue
13
Pages
e494-e500
ISSN
  • 1079-2082 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-2900
OpenAlex
W4411846992
Cited by
11
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4
FWCI
2.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R21HS028485, R01HS029009)
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, drug-drug interactions, clinical decision support, GPT-4, Gemini 1.5, Claude 3, AI-generated recommendations, patient harm
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Clinical Relevance, Large Language Models, Artificial Intelligence, Drug Interactions, 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