Citations

Abstract Purpose Large language models (LLMs) have proven performance for certain diagnostic tasks; however, limited studies have evaluated their consistency in recommending appropriate medication regimens for a given diagnosis. Medication management is a complex task that requires synthesis of drug formulation and complete order instructions for safe use. Here, the performance of GPT-4o, an LLM available with OpenAI’s ChatGPT, was tested on 3 medication management tasks. Methods GPT-4o performance was tested on 3 medication tasks: identifying available formulations for a given generic drug name, identifying drug-drug interactions (DDIs) for a given medication regimen, and preparing a medication order for a given generic drug name. For each experiment, the model’s raw text response was captured exactly as returned and evaluated using clinician evaluation in addition to standard LLM metrics, including Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) vectors, normalized Levenshtein similarity, and Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation (ROUGE-1/ROUGE-L) F1 score between each response and its reference string. Results For the first task of drug-formulation matching, GPT-4o had 49% accuracy for generic medications being matched to all available formulations, with an average of 1.23 omissions per medication and 1.14 hallucinations per medication. For the second task of drug-drug interaction identification, the accuracy was 54.7% for identifying the DDI pair. For the third task, GPT-4o generated order sentences containing no medication or abbreviation errors in 65.8% of the cases. Conclusion Model performance for basic medication tasks was consistently poor. This evaluation highlights the need for domain-specific training through clinician-annotated datasets and a comprehensive evaluation framework for benchmarking performance.

OBJECTIVE: A definition of refractory septic shock is necessary to guide diagnosis, management, prognostication, research, and future guidelines for this most severe form of the disease. We sought to achieve consensus on clinical criteria that would be used to define refractory septic shock. DESIGN: Review of literature, expert panel position statements, and Delphi rounds with an international expert group. SETTING: Consensus was defined as having at least 75% of panellists in agreement or disagreement on the three highest or lowest levels of a 7-point Likert scale or based on responses to single- or multiple-choice questions, respectively. SUBJECTS: A panel of multinational, multiprofessional and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (57 invitations and 56 participants). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A five-round Delphi process was conducted for consensus and stability. The steering committee proposed 34 statements, and five of them were rejected by panel experts after round 2. Among 29 statements selected from eight domains, consensus was reached for 13. The panel agreed on the need for a comprehensive consensus set of clinical criteria for refractory septic shock. Markers of organ dysfunction (75%, 2 rounds), tissue perfusion (91.1%, 2 rounds) including lactate (94.6%, 2 rounds) and capillary refill time (76.8%, 2 rounds), assessment of fluid-responsiveness after initial resuscitation (92.9%, 5 rounds), and use of vasoactive drugs at norepinephrine equivalents greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min (75.0%, 3 rounds), were selected as clinical criteria of refractory septic shock. The use of critical care ultrasound (CCUS) (92.9%, 3 rounds) was the single diagnostic modality that reached a consensus-based agreement. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus for 13 criteria to frame the definition of refractory septic shock was reached. Refractory septic shock is characterised by persistently elevated lactate concentrations and or prolonged capillary refill time in patients with septic shock who are fluid unresponsive, require a norepinephrine base equivalent dose greater than 0.5 micrograms per kilogram per minute, and undergo CCUS assessment when mixed shock is suspected.

Rationale: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) show potential benefits on mortality and other complications of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in adult patients. Evidence-based decisions and processes ensure appropriate use of neuromuscular blockade in adult patients with ARDS. Objectives: The objective of these guidelines was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the administration of NMBAs in critically ill adult patients with ARDS. Design: The American College of Critical Care Medicine Board convened a 21-member multidisciplinary panel of experts in critical care medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacology, surgery, neurology, and anesthesiology. The panel included two expert methodologists specialized in developing evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed during all phases of guidelines development including task force selection and voting. Methods: The panel members identified and formulated five Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. We conducted a systematic review for each question to identify the best available evidence, statistically analyzed the evidence, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. We used the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to formulate the recommendations. Results: The panel generated two conditional recommendations. One recommendation is to use NMBAs in adults with ARDS with Pa o 2 /F io 2 less than 150. For the other recommendations, there was equipoise in the recommendation for and against using titratable vs. fixed-dose NMBA dosing, a monitoring-based strategy for assessing depth of sedation and analgesia in adults with ARDS before initiating or while receiving neuromuscular blockade, and administration of NMBAs for patients who are proned, due to overall lack of evidence in critically ill patients and due to considerations of patient safety and experience concerns. Conclusions: These guidelines provide additional perspectives on the use of NMBA in patients with ARDS, recognizing that institutional and patient-specific considerations must help to guide the decision-making process.

Abstract Background The accuracy and safety of generating medication orders by large language models (LLMs) must be demonstrated. Without standardization, performance evaluation is limited to time and resource-intensive clinician grading. This evaluation aimed to develop a standardized medication format that supports automated performance evaluation (MedMatch). Methods First, a survey of 40 medication prompts was given to clinicians to assess agreement in medication order communication. Second, a clinician panel developed a standardized medication format (MedMatch) for oral and intravenous medications. Third, a clinician-annotated dataset of medication prompts and standardized answers in the MedMatch format was developed for LLM testing. Finally, LLMs were retested with the same dataset, adjusted to exclude route information, to evaluate the appropriate categorization of medication route. Results The formal medication orders consistently showed low omission rates and high overlap for all entities, compared to the verbal and brief written communication types. Lexical overlap results demonstrated pattern norms amongst clinicians with entities appearing most commonly in positions 1-5 in the order of drug name, dose, unit, route, and frequency. In the second survey, the formal written group performed the highest with 78.3% of prompts considered appropriate as a computer-generated response. LLM accuracy on MedMatch order standardization was highest in oral solid (64.2-72.5%), intravenous intermittent (72.5-84.3%), and intravenous push (62.7-74.5%) categories. LLMs performed the worst at categorizing medication orders accurately into intravenous push (18-61%) and intravenous intermittent (51-100%) routes. Conclusions Standardized format for computer-based outputs may support automated performance analysis and enhance the clarity of medication communication.

Abstract Background Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in medication-related tasks despite limited evidence supporting their accuracy and safety. LLMs are vulnerable to adversarial attacks and may confabulate in response to fabricated information in the prompt. Given the substantial risk of harm from medication errors, the purpose of this study was to establish a benchmark task to evaluate LLM performance in distinguishing fabricated from real medications. Methods Two datasets (brand and generic), each consisting of 250 medication lists were developed, each including 4-6 medications and one fabricated medication (specifically a Pokémon character), with complete dosing information provided. Six LLMs were evaluated (GPT-5-Chat, GPT-4o-mini, DrugGPT, Gemma-3-27B-IT, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct, and Qwen3-32B). For each medication list, models were queried for dosing information and disease indication across three experimental conditions: standard decoding, standard decoding with mitigation prompting, and deterministic decoding (temperature = 0). Each experiment was performed in triplicate. Outputs were deemed confabulations if the LLM failed to recognize and reject the fabricated medication. The primary outcome was the rate of confabulations. Exact paired-permutation tests were used to compare confabulation rates across LLMs and prompting approaches. Results Confabulation rates under standard conditions ranged from 2.7% to 99.6%. DrugGPT demonstrated the lowest baseline confabulation rates (2.7-6.4%), whereas other models demonstrated substantially higher rates (47.2-99.6%). Mitigation prompting significantly reduced confabulation rates compared to standard and deterministic decoding across all tasks and datasets (p < 0.001): GPT-5-Chat achieved confabulation rates of 0% with mitigation prompting from baseline rates of 66.4-88.5%. Deterministic decoding did not substantially impact confabulation rates. Conclusions LLMs performing medication-related tasks are susceptible to confabulation in response to invalid or fabricated inputs, raising important safety concerns for clinical use. While mitigation prompting reduced confabulation rates, this study underscores the importance of robust safeguards when deploying LLMs in medication-related decision-making.

Abstract Background: For large language models (LLMs) to reach their potential as information technology tools that make medication use safer, clinically relevant benchmarks capable of automated grading and designed specifically to measure the performance of LLMs for medication tasks are required. The purpose of this study was to design a suite of benchmarking tests reflective of Comprehensive Medication Management (CMM; the standard of care for medication optimization) and quantify the baseline performance of the latest LLMs. Methods: We established six benchmarks representing critical stages of the CMM process: drug formulation matching, drug order (sig) generation, drug route matching, drug-drug interaction identification, renal dose identification, and drug-indication matching. For each benchmark, we curated a clinician-annotated dataset comprising 250 standardized input-output pairs including both inpatient and outpatient medications. We evaluated the clinical knowledge retrieval capabilities of three LLMs: GPT-4o-mini, MedGemma-27B, and LLaMA3-70B. We employed a zero-shot prompting strategy, excluding in-context examples, to assess the models’ internal clinical knowledge rather than their few-shot learning potential. To check reliability, each model was run three times using a temperature of 0.7 (a mid-range value of an LLM setting controlling text generation randomness). Performance was assessed using task-specific evaluation metrics including precision (positive predictive value), recall (sensitivity), F1-score, accuracy, and correctness consistency across trials. Results: Across six benchmarks, LLaMA3-70B demonstrated the highest performance in four tasks: drug-formulation matching (F1, 54.0% [95 CI: 50.1-58]), drug-order generation (accuracy, 88.0%), drug-route identification (F1, 74.3% [95 CI: 71-78]), and drug-indication identification (accuracy, 97.6% [95 CI: 95.6-99.2]). In the drug–drug interaction task, GPT-4o-mini achieved the highest overall accuracy (70.4% [95 CI: 64.8-75.7]). For renal dose–adjustment identification, GPT-4o-mini demonstrated the highest F1 score (83.3% [95 CI: 77.6-88]). Correctness-consistency scores ranged from 8.0% to 97.6% across benchmarks, with no model exhibiting uniformly superior consistency. Conclusions: Model performance varied substantially across medication-related tasks. LLaMA3-70B demonstrated promising baseline performance in tasks involving formulation, ordering, route, and indication. GPT-4o-mini showed potential advantages in drug–drug interaction detection and renal dose adjustment. These findings underscore the need for task-specific evaluation when deploying models for medication-focused clinical decision support.

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to develop a series of benchmarks specifically for large language model (LLM) performance in the identification of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Methods We evaluated six LLMs using a clinician-designed dataset of 750 DDI scenarios. Tasks included: (1) a pointwise two-drug classification task (2) a pairwise three-drug discrimination task and (3) a listwise 4–6 drug selection task. Zero-shot prompting was applied and performance was assessed using precision, recall, F1 score, accuracy, and self-consistency. Results Model performance varied by task structure and interaction severity. GPT-5-Chat demonstrated the highest recall and F1 score in the pointwise task (80.7% and 80.2%), whereas DrugGPT achieved superior accuracy in the pairwise (93.7%) and listwise task (92.6%). All models had improved performance with more severe compared to less severe DDIs (accuracy 72.0-99.2% vs. 58.3-86.7%). All models tended to have higher self-consistency in the pairwise and listwise experiments compared to the pointwise experiment (68.8-93.6% vs. 31.0-74.2%). No model exhibited uniformly high reliability across all tasks. Conclusions Current LLMs show inconsistent capabilities in identifying DDIs. Performance degrades as reasoning space expands with limited stability. These findings emphasize the need for multi-format evaluation frameworks and reliability-aware assessment when considering LLMs for medication-safety applications.

Abstract Purpose Critical care pharmacists (CCPs) have been clearly established as value-added members of the interprofessional team, and their contributions positively impact patient outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite this, not every critically ill patient in the US receives care from a CCP and the model through which CCPs practice is variable, which has important implications. The purpose of this primer is to review current CCP models and discuss elements of the optimal CCP practice model. Summary Current CCP practice models are defined, including the drug processing and dispensing model, clinical pharmacy specialist model, integrated pharmacy generalist model, and hybrid model, as well as unit-based vs service-based models. The optimal CCP practice model considers the Triple Domain of CCP workload, which includes direct patient care, indirect patient care, and professional service. Elements of the ideal CCP practice model including 24/7/365 CCP services, unit- vs service-based models, prescriptive authority, operational support, and CCP-to-patient ratio are discussed. Other vital elements include dedicated offline time, use of appropriate workload metrics, development of career ladders, opportunities for professional development, and providing wellness resources. The ideal CCP practice model must also be considered through the lens of the patient and medical team, the CCP, the institution, and professional organizations. Strategies for optimizing current CCP practice models are provided, and application of optimal CCP practice model elements is explored through 5 case studies. Conclusion The optimal CCP practice model includes multiple elements and incorporates the viewpoints of patients, providers, CCPs, institutions, and professional organizations; this model will increase access of all ICU patients to CCPs, enhance the scope of CCP cognitive services, and ensure the economic sustainability of CCP practice while establishing CCP involvement in activities outside of patient care and in professional service.

Background The mortality risk attributable to moderate aortic stenosis (AS) remains incompletely characterized and has historically been underestimated. We aim to evaluate the association between moderate AS and all‐cause death, comparing it with no/mild AS (in a general referral population and in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction). Methods and Results A systematic review and pooled meta‐analysis of Kaplan–Meier‐derived reconstructed time‐to‐event data of studies published by June 2023 was conducted to evaluate survival outcomes among patients with moderate AS in comparison with individuals with no/mild AS. Ten studies were included, encompassing a total of 409 680 patients (11 527 with moderate AS and 398 153 with no/mild AS). In the overall population, the 15‐year overall survival rate was 23.3% (95% CI, 19.1%–28.3%) in patients with moderate AS and 58.9% (95% CI, 58.1%–59.7%) in patients with no/mild aortic stenosis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.55 [95% CI, 2.46–2.64]; P <0.001). In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the 10‐year overall survival rate was 15.5% (95% CI, 10.0%–24.0%) in patients with moderate AS and 37.3% (95% CI, 36.2%–38.5%) in patients with no/mild AS (HR, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.69–2.0]; P <0.001). In both populations (overall and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction), these differences correspond to significant lifetime loss associated with moderate AS during follow‐up (4.4 years, P <0.001; and 1.9 years, P <0.001, respectively). A consistent pattern of elevated mortality rate associated with moderate AS in sensitivity analyses of matched studies was observed. Conclusions Moderate AS was associated with higher risk of death and lifetime loss compared with patients with no/mild AS.

PURPOSE Radiation-associated cardiac disease is a major cause of morbidity/mortality among childhood cancer survivors. Radiation dose-response relationships for cardiac substructures and cardiac diseases remain unestablished. METHODS Using the 25,481 5-year survivors of childhood cancer treated from 1970 to 1999 in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, we evaluated coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure (HF), valvular disease (VD), and arrhythmia. We reconstructed radiation doses for each survivor to the coronary arteries, chambers, valves, and whole heart. Excess relative rate (ERR) models and piecewise exponential models evaluated dose-response relationships. RESULTS The cumulative incidence 35 years from diagnosis was 3.9% (95% CI, 3.4 to 4.3) for CAD, 3.8% (95% CI, 3.4 to 4.2) for HF, 1.2% (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.5) for VD, and 1.4% (95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6) for arrhythmia. A total of 12,288 survivors (48.2%) were exposed to radiotherapy. Quadratic ERR models improved fit compared with linear ERR models for the dose-response relationship between mean whole heart and CAD, HF, and arrhythmia, suggesting a potential threshold dose; however, such departure from linearity was not observed for most cardiac substructure end point dose-response relationships. Mean doses of 5-9.9 Gy to the whole heart did not increase the risk of any cardiac diseases. Mean doses of 5-9.9 Gy to the right coronary artery (rate ratio [RR], 2.6 [95% CI, 1.6 to 4.1]) and left ventricle (RR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3 to 3.7]) increased risk of CAD, and to the tricuspid valve (RR, 5.5 [95% CI, 2.0 to 15.1]) and right ventricle (RR, 8.4 [95% CI, 3.7 to 19.0]) increased risk of VD. CONCLUSION Among children with cancer, there may be no threshold dose below which radiation to the cardiac substructures does not increase the risk of cardiac diseases. This emphasizes their importance in modern treatment planning.