Back

Large language models management of complex medication regimens: a case-based evaluation

Most, A.; Chase, A.; Xu, S.; Hedrick, T.; Murray, B.; Keats, K.; Smith, S.; Barreto, E.; Liu, T.; Sikora, A.

2024-07-08 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2024.07.03.24309889 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have shown capability in diagnosing complex medical cases and passing medical licensing exams, but to date, only limited evaluations have studied how LLMs interpret, analyze, and optimize complex medication regimens. The purpose of this evaluation was to test four LLMs ability to identify medication errors and appropriate medication interventions on complex patient cases from the intensive care unit (ICU). MethodsA series of eight patient cases were developed by critical care pharmacists including history of present illness, laboratory values, vital signs, and medication regimens. Then, four LLMs (ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT (GPT-4), Claude2, and Llama2-7b) were prompted to develop a medication regimen for the patient. LLM generated medication regimens were then reviewed by a panel of seven critical care pharmacists to assess for presence of medication errors and clinical relevance. For each medication regimen recommended by the LLM, clinicians were asked to assess for if they would continue a medication, identify perceived medication errors in the medications recommended, identify the presence of life-threatening medication choices, and rank overall agreement on a 5-point Likert scale. ResultsThe clinician panel rated to continue therapies recommended by the LLMs between 55.8-67.9% of the time. Clinicians perceived between 1.57-4.29 medication errors per recommended regimen, and life-threatening recommendations were present between 15.0-55.3% of the time. Level agreement was between 1.85-2.67 for the four LLMs. ConclusionsLLMs demonstrated potential to serve as clinical decision support for the management of complex medication regimens with further domain specific training; however, caution should be used when employing LLMs for medication management given the present capabilities.

Matching journals

The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.