Cited by 1Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesMachine Learning in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Capacidade do ChatGPT, Deepseek e Gemini em prever as principais interações medicamentosas potenciais em adultos internados em Unidade de Terapia Intensiva

Open access
LIMA, Tácio Mendonça·2025·Journal of Hospital Pharmacy and Health Services

Abstract

Objective: evaluate the ability of the ChatGPT v.3.5, DeepSeek v-3, and Gemini 2.0 flash to accurately predict major potential drug interactions (DIs) in critically ill patients. Methods: A list of 20 DIs was compiled from previously published literature. The Micromedex and Drugs.com databases were used as references. A specific prompt was designed to interact with the tools. The generated responses were stored for subsequent analysis by a pharmacist. Specificity, sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), accuracy, and agreement were calculated for each tool based on the responses regarding DDI severity, which were categorized into five levels: contraindicated, major, moderate, minor, and no interaction. Additionally, the responses related to the mechanism of action and recommended management for each DDI were categorized as “adequate and accurate,” “adequate but inaccurate”, and “inadequate.” Results: When the Micromedex was used as a reference, ChatGPT performed better, achieving an accuracy rate of 75%, while DeepSeek and Gemini scored 70% and 65%, respectively. Overall, there was an improvement in the performance of all tools when Drugs.com was used as the reference, with accuracy rates of 80% for DeepSeek and 75% for both ChatGPT and Gemini. However, the agreement on the severity of DDIs between the tools and references was 0.354 (weak) for Drugs.com and 0.410 (moderate) for Micromedex. In general, two “inadequate” responses and 10 “adequate but inaccurate” responses regarding the mechanism of action and recommended management were observed when compared with Micromedex (14 DDIs analyzed), while eight “inadequate” responses and 21 “adequate but inaccurate” responses were found when compared with Drugs.com (17 DDIs analyzed). Conclusion: The tools analyzed show promise to assist healthcare professionals in predicting DDI in adults hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, their use should be approached with caution, as they may generate incorrect/inaccurate information. Additional advancements are required to ensure their reliable application in clinical practice.

Overview

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 · 10.30968/jhphs.2025.161.1262

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Dimakos J, Douros A. Methodological Considerations on the Use of Cohort Designs in Drug-Drug Interaction Studies in Pharmacoepidemiology. Curr Epidemiol Rep 2024;11(3): 175-183. doi: 10.1007/s40471-024-00347-1. · DOI
  2. Aksoy N, Ozturk N. A meta-analysis assessing the prevalence of drug-drug interactions among hospitalized patients. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2023;32(12):1319-1330. doi: 10.1002/pds.5691. · DOI
  3. Bakker T, Dongelmans DA, Nabovati E, et al. Heterogeneity in the Identification of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review, Critical Appraisal, and Reporting Recommendations. J Clin Pharmacol. 2022;62(6):706-720. doi: 10.1002/jcph.2020. · DOI
  4. Fitzmaurice MG, Wong A, Akerberg H, et al. Evaluation of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in Adults in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Drug Saf. 2019;42(9):1035-1044. doi: 10.1007/s40264-019-00829-y. · DOI
  5. Klopotowska JE, Leopold JH, Bakker T, et al. Adverse drug events caused by three high-risk drug-drug interactions in patients admitted to intensive care units: A multicentre retrospective observational study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2024;90(1):164-175. doi: 10.1111/bcp.15882. · DOI
  6. Roblek T, Vaupotic T, Mrhar A, et al. Drug-drug interaction software in clinical practice: a systematic review. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71(2):131-42. doi: 10.1007/s00228-014-1786-7. · DOI
  7. Apidi NA, Murugiah MK, Muthuveloo R, et al. Mobile Medical Applications for Dosage Recommendation, Drug Adverse Reaction, and Drug Interaction: Review and Comparison. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017;51(4):480-485. doi: 10.1177/2168479017696266. · DOI
  8. Felisberto M, Lima GDS, Celuppi IC, et al. Override rate of drug-drug interaction alerts in clinical decision support systems: A brief systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Informatics J. 2024;30(2):14604582241263242. doi: 10.1177/14604582241263242. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Zhang T, Leng J, Liu Y. Deep learning for drug-drug interaction extraction from the literature: a review. Brief Bioinform. 2020;21(5):1609-1627. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbz087. · DOI
  10. Dou M, Tang J, Tiwari P, et al. Drug-Drug Interaction Relation Extraction Based on Deep Learning: A Review. ACM Computing Surveys. 2024;56(6):1-33. doi: 10.1145/3645089. · DOI
  11. Korngiebel DM, Mooney SD. Considering the possibilities and pitfalls of Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3 (GPT-3) in healthcare delivery. NPJ Digit Med. 2021 Jun 3;4(1):93. doi: 10.1038/s41746-021-00464-x. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Juhi A, Pipil N, Santra S, et al. The Capability of ChatGPT in Predicting and Explaining Common Drug-Drug Interactions. Cureus. 2023;15(3): e36272. doi: 10.7759/cureus.36272. References · DOI
  13. Aksoyalp ZS, Erdoğan BR. Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence and drug interaction tools: a perspective with the example of clopidogrel. J Fac Pharm Ankara. 2024;48(3):1011-1020. doi: 10.33483/jfpau.1460173. · DOI
  14. Krishnan RPR, Hung EH, Ashford M, et al. Evaluating the capability of ChatGPT in predicting drug-drug interactions: Real-world evidence using hospitalized patient data. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2024;90(12):3361-3366. doi: 10.1111/ bcp.16275. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Bossaer JB, Eskens D, Gardner A. Sensitivity and specificity of drug interaction databases to detect interactions with recently approved oral antineoplastics. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2022;28(1):82-86. doi:10.1177/1078155220984244. · DOI
  16. Cedraz KN, Santos Junior MC. Identificação e caracterização de interações medicamentosas em prescrições médicas da unidade de terapia intensiva de um hospital público da cidade de Feira de Santana, BA. Rev Soc Bras Clin Med. 2014;12(2):1-7.
  17. Kumar Y, Koul A, Singla R, et al. Artificial intelligence in disease diagnosis: a systematic literature review, synthesizing framework and future research agenda. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput. 2023;14(7):8459-8486. doi: 10.1007/ s12652-021-03612-z. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Rezayi S, R Niakan Kalhori S, Saeedi S. Effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence for Personalized Medicine in Neoplasms: A Systematic Review. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022:7842566. doi: 10.1155/2022/7842566. · DOI
  19. Elhaddad M, Hamam S. AI-Driven Clinical Decision Support Systems: An Ongoing Pursuit of Potential. Cureus. 2024 Apr 6;16(4):e57728. doi: 10.7759/cureus.57728. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hoffman J, Hattingh L, Shinners L, et al. Allied Health Professionals' Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in the Clinical Setting: Cross-Sectional Survey. JMIR Form Res. 2024 Dec 30;8:e57204. doi: 10.2196/57204. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Sadiq F, Sadiq F, Gul R, et al. Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Hospital Settings in Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Cureus. 2024 Dec 9;16(12):e75355. doi: 10.7759/cureus.75355. · DOI
  22. Jena A, Chaudhary N, Manohar B, et al. Knowledge and Perception of Artificial Intelligence Amidst the Health Professionals-A Web-Based Survey. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024 Dec;16(Suppl 5):S4365-S4367. doi: 10.4103/jpbs. jpbs_647_24. · DOI
  23. Lima TM, Bonafé M, Baby AR, et al. ChatGPT in Pharmacy Practice: Disruptive or Destructive Innovation? A Scoping Review. Sci. Pharm. 2024;92(4):58. doi:10.3390/ scipharm92040058. JHPHS Journal of Hospital Pharmacy and Health Services © Authors · DOI · Paper page
  24. Lima TM. Capacity of ChatGPT, Deepseek, and Gemini in predicting major potential drug interactions in adults within the Intensive Care Unit. J Hosp Pharm Health Serv. 2025;16(1):e1262. DOI: 10.30968/jhphs.2025.161.1262
  25. Lima EDC, Camarinha BD, Ferreira Bezerra NC, et al. Severe Potential Drug-Drug Interactions and the Increased Length of Stay of Children in Intensive Care Unit. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:555407. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.555407. · DOI
  26. Schmitt JP, Kirfel A, Schmitz MT, et al. The Impact of Drug Interactions in Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia on Hospital Length of Stay. Geriatrics (Basel). 2022;7(1):11. doi: 10.3390/geriatrics7010011. · DOI
  27. Shariff A, Belagodu Sridhar S, Abdullah Basha NF, et al. Assessing Consistency of Drug-Drug Interaction-Related Information Across Various Drug Information Resources. Cureus. 2021;13(3):e13766. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13766. · DOI
  28. Kontsioti E, Maskell S, Bensalem A, et al. Similarity and consistency assessment of three major online drug-drug interaction resources. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022;88(9):4067- 4079. doi: 10.1111/bcp.15341. · DOI
  29. Carollo M, Crisafulli S, Selleri M, et al. Agreement of Different Drug-Drug Interaction Checkers for Proton Pump Inhibitors. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(7):e2419851. doi: 10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2024.19851. · DOI
  30. Yamagata AT, Barcelos Júnior RMC, Galato D, et al. Perfil dos estudos de interações medicamentosas potenciais em hospitais brasileiros: revisão integrativa. Rev Bras Farm Hosp Serv Saude. 2018;9(4):e094.003. doi: 10.30968/ rbfhss.2018.094.003. · DOI
  31. Rothgeb A, Beckett RD, Daoud N. Off-label use information in electronic drug information resources. J Med Libr Assoc. 2022;110(4):471-477. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1419. · DOI
  32. Marcath LA, Xi J, Hoylman EK, Kidwell KM, et al. Comparison of Nine Tools for Screening Drug-Drug Interactions of Oral Oncolytics. J Oncol Pract. 2018 Jun;14(6):e368-e374. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00086. · DOI
  33. Pinkoh R, Rodsiri R, Wainipitapong S. Retrospective cohort observation on psychotropic drug-drug interaction and identification utility from 3 databases: Drugs.com®, Lexicomp®, and Epocrates®. PLoS One. 2023;18(6):e0287575. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287575. · DOI
  34. Suriyapakorn B, Chairat P, Boonyoprakarn S, et al. Comparison of potential drug-drug interactions with metabolic syndrome medications detected by two databases. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):e0225239. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0225239. · DOI
  35. Hecker M, Frahm N, Bachmann P, et al. Screening for severe drug-drug interactions in patients with multiple sclerosis: A comparison of three drug interaction databases. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:946351. doi: 10.3389/ fphar.2022.946351. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
LIMA, T. M.
Venue
Journal of Hospital Pharmacy and Health Services
Published
2025-03-31
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
e1262
ISSN
3085-8682 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410775485
Cited by
0
References
1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Hospital Pharmacy and Health Services (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • 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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
drug-drug interactions, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, large language models, intensive care unit, critically ill patients, drug interaction prediction, AI accuracy evaluation, Micromedex, Drugs.com, mechanism of action, interaction severity

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