Back

Proposed Context-of-Use Evaluation Framework for Medication Management Tasks Completed by Generative Artificial Intelligence

Henry, K.; Blotske, K.; Smith, B.; Li, T.; Gao, Y.; Zhao, X.; Liu, T.; Sikora, A.

2026-06-29 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.06.26.26356706 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Standardized evaluation of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) for medication management is lacking. Given the potential lethality of medication errors endorsed or missed by AI, performance evaluation constructs are essential. The purpose of this evaluation was to develop a standardized grading framework for performance evaluation of medication management tasks. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was undertaken that included literature evaluation for standards and best practices of comprehensive medication management (CMM), panel discussions, and iterative application to set of cases. The goal was to develop a grading framework that effectively evaluated domains like safety, factuality, and clinical relevance that can be employed for a broad range of medication domains (i.e., electrolyte replacement, antibiotic selection). Inter-rater reliability with intraclass Krippendorffs Alpha was the primary outcome. Results: A total of 5 panelists developed the CMM Evaluation Framework, which includes 4 dimensions: safety, factuality, completeness, and preference. These dimensions are applied to three CMM skills: collecting patient data, analyzing information, and designing regimens. Each dimension is rated from 1-5. An additional dimension evaluated the presence of hallucinations and errors with high harm scores (i.e., absolute failure criteria regardless of an overall score). The Krippendorffs Alpha was highest in the medication therapy problem and medication therapy format categories, for 50 pneumonia cases, run in triplicate (150 total). Conclusions: This framework is informed by national standards for CMM and the healthcare professionals dedicated to the provision of this service. These domains allow for the possibilities of practice variation via the preference domain while also having strong guardrails against the commission of medication errors. Further analyses beyond pilot testing are necessary.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 12%
15.2%
2
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.3%
3
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.3%
4
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.4%
5
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.1%
6
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
7
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.3%
8
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
9
JMIRx Med
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
10
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
11
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
12
BMC Medical Education
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
13
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.4%
14
JMIR Medical Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
15
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
16
Medical Decision Making
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
17
Clinical Trials
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
18
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.5%
19
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
20
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 64%
1.1%
21
Sensors
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
22
Systematic Reviews
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
23
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
24
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
25
BJPsych Open
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
26
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
27
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
28
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
29
Computers in Biology and Medicine
128 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
30
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%