Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40215480›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2025

Identifying Deprescribing Opportunities With Large Language Models in Older Adults: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Vimig Socrates, Donald S Wright, Thomas Huang, Soraya Fereydooni, Christine Dien, Ling Chi, Jesse Albano, Brian Patterson, Naga Sasidhar Kanaparthy, Catherine X Wright and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. AI-Based Automation for Medication Reconciliation: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. ChatGPT-4o in delirium recognition: a pilot study.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Vimig Socrates *Department of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7955-9875
Donald S Wright *Department of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2564-7754
Thomas HuangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9056-7016
Soraya FereydooniDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1264-6461
Christine DienProgram of Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8850-3046
Ling ChiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8270-9245
Jesse AlbanoDepartment of Pharmacy, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4451-0438
Brian PattersonBerbeeWalsh Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4584-3808
Naga Sasidhar KanaparthyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2342-2412
Catherine X WrightSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7638-4053
Andrew LozaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1754-5133
David ChartashDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0265-330X
Mark IscoeDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4446-2488
Richard Andrew TaylorDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9082-6644

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
MEDICAL INFORMATICS RESEARCH TRAINING AT YALET15LM007056 · NLM · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Mark Bender Gerstein, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 1987 to 2026
$22.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolypharmacy, the concurrent use of multiple medications, is prevalent among older adults and associated with increased risks for adverse drug events including falls. Deprescribing, the systematic process of discontinuing potentially inappropriate medications, aims to mitigate these risks. However, the practical application of deprescribing criteria in emergency settings remains limited due to time constraints and criteria complexity.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the performance of a large language model (LLM)-based pipeline in identifying deprescribing opportunities for older emergency department (ED) patients with polypharmacy, using 3 different sets of criteria: Beers, Screening Tool of Older People's Prescriptions, and Geriatric Emergency Medication Safety Recommendations. The study further evaluates LLM confidence calibration and its ability to improve recommendation performance.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of older adults presenting to an ED in a large academic medical center in the Northeast United States from January 2022 to March 2022. A random sample of 100 patients (712 total oral medications) was selected for detailed analysis. The LLM pipeline consisted of two steps: (1) filtering high-yield deprescribing criteria based on patients' medication lists, and (2) applying these criteria using both structured and unstructured patient data to recommend deprescribing. Model performance was assessed by comparing model recommendations to those of trained medical students, with discrepancies adjudicated by board-certified ED physicians. Selective prediction, a method that allows a model to abstain from low-confidence predictions to improve overall reliability, was applied to assess the model's confidence and decision-making thresholds.

resultsThe LLM was significantly more effective in identifying deprescribing criteria (positive predictive value: 0.83; negative predictive value: 0.93; McNemar test for paired proportions: χ

conclusionsThis study highlights the potential of LLMs to support deprescribing decisions in the ED by effectively filtering relevant criteria. However, challenges remain in applying these criteria to complex clinical scenarios, as the LLM demonstrated poor performance on more intricate decision-making tasks, with its reported confidence often failing to align with its actual success in these cases. The findings underscore the need for clearer deprescribing guidelines, improved LLM calibration for real-world use, and better integration of human-artificial intelligence workflows to balance artificial intelligence recommendations with clinician judgment.

Indexed as

DeprescriptionsInappropriate PrescribingPolypharmacyAgedAged, 80 and overEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansLarge Language ModelsMalePotentially Inappropriate Medication ListRetrospective Studiescalibrationdeprescribingemergency medicinegeriatricslarge language modelsnatural language processingpotentially inappropriate medication list

Identifiers

PMID40215480
PMCPMC12032504

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.