Large language models management of complex medication regimens: a case-based evaluation
Open accessAbstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) have shown the ability to diagnose complex medical cases, but only limited studies have evaluated the performance of LLMs in the development of evidence-based treatment plans. The purpose of this evaluation was to test four LLMs on their ability to develop safe and efficacious treatment plans on complex patients managed in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: Eight high-fidelity patient cases focusing on medication management were developed by critical care clinicians including history of present illness, laboratory values, vital signs, home medications, and current medications. Four LLMs [ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT (GPT-4), Claude-2, and Llama-2-70b] were prompted to develop an optimized medication regimen for each case. LLM generated medication regimens were then reviewed by a panel of seven critical care clinicians to assess safety and efficacy, as defined by medication errors identified and appropriate treatment for the clinical conditions. Appropriate treatment was measured by the average rate of clinician agreement to continue each medication in the regimen and compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Clinicians identified a median of 4.1-6.9 medication errors per recommended regimen, and life-threatening medication recommendations were present in 16.3%-57.1% of the regimens, depending on LLM. Clinicians continued LLM-recommended medications at a rate of 54.6%-67.3%, with GPT-4 having the highest rate of medication continuation among all LLMs tested (p < 0.001) and the lowest rate of life-threatening medication errors (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Caution is warranted using present LLMs for medication regimens given the number of medication errors that were identified in this pilot study. However, LLMs did demonstrate potential to serve as clinical decision support for the management of complex medication regimens given the need for domain specific prompting and testing.
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?
Another study reported fabricated references in medication information generated by ChatGPT-3.5.
“Another study also reported fabricated references in medication information generated by ChatGPT-3.5.67”
From Large Language Models in Pharmacist-Led Direct Patient Care: A Rapid Review of Published Evaluations (2026) · cites this paper as [67]
The Results report medication-regimen errors in GPT-3.5 output, but do not say it generated fabricated references. A search of our copy for fabricated or invented citations and references found no passage addressing that claim. (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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 14
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Guan Z. Wu Z. Liu Z. Wu D. Ren H. Li Q. (2023). “ CohortGPT: an enhanced GPT for participant recruitment in clinical study”. arXiv preprint. 10.48550/arXiv:2307.11346 · DOI
- Tariq R. A. Vashisht R. Sinha A. Scherbak Y. (2024). Medication dispensing errors and prevention. StatPearls. Available online at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519065/. 30085607
- Zhang H. Diao S. Lin Y. Fung Y. R. Lian Q. Wang X. (2024). R-Tuning: instructing large language models to say ‘I don’t know’. Mexico City, Mexico: Association for Computational Linguistics, 7113– 7139.
- Authors
- Chase, A., Most, A., Xu, S., Barreto, E., Murray, B., Henry, K., Smith, S., Hedrick, T., Chen, X., Li, S., Liu, T., & Sikora, A.
- Affiliations
- University of New Mexico Hospital (US)
- University of Georgia (US)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of Virginia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sikora, Andrea
- ORCID
- Venue
- Frontiers in Pharmacology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2025-11-24
- Volume
- 16
- Pages
- 1514445-1514445
- ISSN
- 1663-9812 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12682882
- OpenAlex
- W4416607794
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14
- FWCI
- 3.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Pharmacology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Keywords
- large language models, intensive care unit, medication errors, clinical decision support, ChatGPT, GPT-4, Llama 2, Claude 2, clinician agreement
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