CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 21Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAcademic Writing and PublishingArtificial Intelligence in Education

How Can ChatGPT Benefit Pharmacy: A Case Report on Review Writing

Open access
Zhu, Yun, Han, Dan, Chen, Shaoqing, Zeng, Feng, Wang, Cheng·2023·Preprints.org
DOI 10.20944/preprints202302.0324.v1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a breakthrough technology that has been widely applied in many fields and its use in pharmacy is also gaining increasing attentions. Recently, ChatGPT, a newly developed virtual assistant and large language model, is showing strong ability in writing, which makes it a potential tool for review writing. Here in our study, we employ the public available ChatGPT and try to instruct it to generate a mini review on the topic of “lipid-based drug delivery systems” by conversation. Our results showed that ChatGPT can give reasonable outline for this topic and give seemingly sentences with concluding wording, which can give useful information to the readers. However, the accuracy and consistence of the review are not fully guaranteed and there is lack of reliable citations. Therefore, it is concluded that ChatGPT can only give general knowledge on the selected topic, but not capable of giving in-depth discussion. The generated review article can be a useful but occasionally unprecise electronic encyclopedia instead of rigorous scientific literature, which can give benefit for pharmaceutical education and interchange to some extent.

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 · 10.20944/preprints202302.0324.v1

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • The accuracy, reliability, and practical viability of ChatGPT in real-world clinical pharmacy settings have yet to be comprehensively explored.

    “However, despite the promise, the accuracy, reliability, and practical viability of ChatGPT in real-world clinical pharmacy settings have yet to be comprehensively explored.1,10”

    From ChatGPT and Clinical Training: Perception, Concerns, and Practice of Pharm-D Students (2023) · cites this paper as [10]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Davenport T, Kalakota R. The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare[J]. Future healthcare journal, 2019, 6(2): 94.
  2. Wu F, Lu C, Zhu M, Chen H, Zhu J, Yu K, Li L, Li M, Chen Q, Li X. Towards a new generation of artificial intelligence in China[J]. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2020, 2(6): 312-6.
  3. Cioffi R, Travaglioni M, Piscitelli G, Petrillo A, De Felice F. Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications in smart production: Progress, trends, and directions[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(2): 492. Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 February 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202302.0324.v1
  4. Kolluri S, Lin J, Liu R, Zhang Y, Zhang W. Machine learning and artificial intelligence in pharmaceutical research and develop- ment: a review[J]. The AAPS Journal, 2022, 24: 1-10.
  5. Kiriiri G K, Njogu P M, Mwangi A N. Exploring different approaches to improve the success of drug discovery and development projects: a review[J]. Future Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2020, 6(1): 1-12.
  6. Neupane Y R, Sabir M D, Ahmad N, Ali M, Kohli K. Lipid drug conjugate nanoparticle as a novel lipid nanocarrier for the oral delivery of decitabine: ex vivo gut permeation studies[J]. Nanotechnology, 2013, 24(41): 415102.
  7. Banerjee S, Kundu A. Lipid-drug conjugates: a potential nanocarrier system for oral drug delivery applications[J]. DARU Jour- nal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2018, 26: 65-75.
  8. Irby D, Du C, Li F. Lipid-drug conjugate for enhancing drug delivery[J]. Molecular pharmaceutics, 2017, 14(5): 1325-38.
  9. Passero Jr F C, Grapsa D, Syrigos K N, Saif M W. The safety and efficacy of Onivyde (irinotecan liposome injection) for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer following gemcitabine-based therapy[J]. Expert review of anticancer therapy, 2016, 16(7): 697-703.
  10. Lipinski M J, Frias J C, Amirbekian V, Briley-Saebo K C, Mani V, Samber D, Abbate A, Aguinaldo J G S, Massey D, Fuster V. Macrophage-specific lipid-based nanoparticles improve mri detection and characterization of human atherosclerosis[J]. JACC Cardiovascular imaging, 2009, 2(5): 637.
  11. Green M R, Manikhas G M, Orlov S, Afanasyev B, Makhson A M, Bhar P, Hawkins M J. Abraxane®, a novel Cremophor®-free, albumin-bound particle form of paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer[J]. Annals of oncology, 2006, 17(8): 1263-8.
  12. Yadav N K, Joshi S, Ratnapriya S, Sahasrabuddhe A A, Dube A. Combined immunotherapeutic effect of Leishmania-derived recombinant aldolase and Ambisome against experimental visceral leishmaniasis[J]. Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection, 2023, 56(1): 163-71.
  13. Meyerhoff A. US Food and Drug Administration approval of AmBisome (liposomal amphotericin B) for treatment of visceral leishmaniasis[J]. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 1999, 28(1): 42-8.
  14. Adler-Moore J, Proffitt R T. AmBisome: liposomal formulation, structure, mechanism of action and pre-clinical experience[J]. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2002, 49(suppl_1): 21-30. Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 February 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202302.0324.v1
  15. Kon E, Elia U, Peer D. Principles for designing an optimal mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccine[J]. Current opinion in Biotechnol- ogy, 2022, 73: 329-36. Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 20 February 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202302.0324.v1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zhu, Y., Han, D., Chen, S., Zeng, F., & Wang, C.
Affiliations
  • Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital (CN)
  • Changzhou No.2 People's Hospital (CN)
  • Nanjing Tech University (CN)
  • Changzhou University (CN)
Corresponding author
Wang, Cheng
ORCID
Venue
Preprints.org
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-02-20
DOI
10.20944/preprints202302.0324.v1
OpenAlex
W4321482607
Cited by
21
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
Keywords
ChatGPT, large language models, pharmacy, review writing, lipid-based drug delivery, pharmacy education, citation reliability

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