Chat GPT vs. Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Analysis of Drug–Drug Interactions

IF 5.5 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics Pub Date : 2025-02-11 DOI:10.1002/cpt.3585
Thorsten Bischof, Valentin al Jalali, Markus Zeitlinger, Anselm Jorda, Michelle Hana, Karla-Nikita Singeorzan, Nikolaus Riesenhuber, Gunar Stemer, Christian Schoergenhofer
{"title":"Chat GPT vs. Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Analysis of Drug–Drug Interactions","authors":"Thorsten Bischof,&nbsp;Valentin al Jalali,&nbsp;Markus Zeitlinger,&nbsp;Anselm Jorda,&nbsp;Michelle Hana,&nbsp;Karla-Nikita Singeorzan,&nbsp;Nikolaus Riesenhuber,&nbsp;Gunar Stemer,&nbsp;Christian Schoergenhofer","doi":"10.1002/cpt.3585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The current standard method for the analysis of potential drug–drug interactions (pDDIs) is time-consuming and includes the use of multiple clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and the interpretation by healthcare professionals. With the emergence of large language models developed with artificial intelligence, an interesting alternative arose. This retrospective study included 30 patients with polypharmacy, who underwent a pDDI analysis between October 2022 and August 2023, and compared the performance of Chat GPT and established CDSSs (MediQ®, Lexicomp®, Micromedex®) in the analysis of pDDIs. A multidisciplinary team interpreted the obtained results and decided upon clinical relevance and assigned severity grades using three categories: (i) contraindicated, (ii) severe, (iii) moderate. The expert review identified a total of 280 clinically relevant pDDIs (3 contraindications, 13 severe, 264 moderate) using established CDSSs, compared with 80 pDDIs (2 contraindications, 5 severe, 73 moderate) using Chat GPT. Chat GPT almost entirely neglected pDDIs with the risk to QTc prolongation (85 vs. 8), which could also not be sufficiently improved by using a specific prompt. To assess the consistency of the results provided by Chat GPT, we repeated each query and found inconsistent results in 90% of the cases. In contrast, Chat GPT provided acceptable and comprehensible recommendations for specific questions on side effects. The use of Chat GPT for the identification of pDDIs cannot be recommended currently, because clinically relevant pDDIs were not detected, there were obvious errors and results were inconsistent. However, if these limitations are addressed accordingly, it is a promising platform for the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":153,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":"117 4","pages":"1142-1147"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11924163/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.3585","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The current standard method for the analysis of potential drug–drug interactions (pDDIs) is time-consuming and includes the use of multiple clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and the interpretation by healthcare professionals. With the emergence of large language models developed with artificial intelligence, an interesting alternative arose. This retrospective study included 30 patients with polypharmacy, who underwent a pDDI analysis between October 2022 and August 2023, and compared the performance of Chat GPT and established CDSSs (MediQ®, Lexicomp®, Micromedex®) in the analysis of pDDIs. A multidisciplinary team interpreted the obtained results and decided upon clinical relevance and assigned severity grades using three categories: (i) contraindicated, (ii) severe, (iii) moderate. The expert review identified a total of 280 clinically relevant pDDIs (3 contraindications, 13 severe, 264 moderate) using established CDSSs, compared with 80 pDDIs (2 contraindications, 5 severe, 73 moderate) using Chat GPT. Chat GPT almost entirely neglected pDDIs with the risk to QTc prolongation (85 vs. 8), which could also not be sufficiently improved by using a specific prompt. To assess the consistency of the results provided by Chat GPT, we repeated each query and found inconsistent results in 90% of the cases. In contrast, Chat GPT provided acceptable and comprehensible recommendations for specific questions on side effects. The use of Chat GPT for the identification of pDDIs cannot be recommended currently, because clinically relevant pDDIs were not detected, there were obvious errors and results were inconsistent. However, if these limitations are addressed accordingly, it is a promising platform for the future.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
GPT与临床决策支持系统在药物-药物相互作用分析中的比较。
目前用于分析潜在药物-药物相互作用(pddi)的标准方法是耗时的,包括使用多个临床决策支持系统(cdss)和医疗保健专业人员的解释。随着人工智能开发的大型语言模型的出现,一个有趣的选择出现了。这项回顾性研究纳入了30例多药患者,他们在2022年10月至2023年8月期间接受了pDDI分析,并比较了Chat GPT和已建立的cdss (MediQ®,Lexicomp®,Micromedex®)在pDDI分析中的表现。一个多学科团队解释了获得的结果,并确定了临床相关性,并使用三个类别划分了严重程度等级:(i)禁忌症,(ii)重度,(iii)中度。专家评审共确定了280例使用已建立的cdss的临床相关pddi(3个禁忌症,13例重度,264例中度),而使用Chat GPT的pddi为80例(2个禁忌症,5例重度,73例中度)。Chat GPT几乎完全忽略了有QTc延长风险的pddi(85比8),使用特定提示也不能充分改善。为了评估Chat GPT提供的结果的一致性,我们重复了每个查询,发现90%的情况下结果不一致。相比之下,Chat GPT对副作用的具体问题提供了可接受和可理解的建议。目前不推荐使用Chat GPT识别pddi,因为没有检测到临床相关的pddi,存在明显的误差,结果不一致。然而,如果这些限制得到相应的解决,它将是一个有前途的未来平台。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.50%
发文量
290
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT) is the authoritative cross-disciplinary journal in experimental and clinical medicine devoted to publishing advances in the nature, action, efficacy, and evaluation of therapeutics. CPT welcomes original Articles in the emerging areas of translational, predictive and personalized medicine; new therapeutic modalities including gene and cell therapies; pharmacogenomics, proteomics and metabolomics; bioinformation and applied systems biology complementing areas of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, human investigation and clinical trials, pharmacovigilence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacometrics, and population pharmacology.
期刊最新文献
Implementation of OMOP and ConcePTION Common Data Models in CPRD GOLD: Risk of Bleeding and Cardiovascular Outcomes From Anticoagulant Use. Advancing Pharmacometrics in Africa: Insights and Perspectives From the 2025 Pharmacometrics Africa Conference. Concomitant 5-Aminosalicylic Acid Does Not Affect the Efficacy of Janus Kinase Inhibitors in Ulcerative Colitis. Unveiling Hepatic Protein Alterations in Neonatal and Infant Biliary Atresia. Comparing the Efficacy of Various Treatment Strategies for Patients With Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: An Umbrella Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1