ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2025
Accuracy and teachability of artificial intelligence chatbots in solving pharmaceutical calculations: a descriptive study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmaceutical calculations are required elements of the Doctor of Pharmacy curriculum in the United States. With the growth of artificial intelligence chatbots, pharmacists and educators are exploring their application. The accuracy of artificial intelligence chatbots in performing pharmaceutical calculations remains unknown.
aimTo evaluate the accuracy of artificial intelligence chatbots for pharmaceutical calculations.
methodEleven free-access chatbots were tested using 7 faculty-generated questions: 1 control, 2 creatinine clearance, 1 oral to intravenous dose conversion, 2 antibiotic pharmacokinetic dosing, and 1 number needed to harm. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the primary outcome, which was proportion of correct responses. Secondary outcomes included types of errors and teachability.
resultsTen (90.9%) chatbots answered the control question correctly, and all answered the dose conversion question correctly. Eight (72.7%) chatbots correctly calculated number needed to harm. Only 1 (9.1%) provided the correct antibiotic dosing, and none correctly calculated creatinine clearance. Common errors included incorrect weight selection for creatinine clearance and use of incorrect formulas. Nine (81.8%) chatbots were teachable on at least 1 question.
conclusionArtificial intelligence chatbots demonstrated limited accuracy for multi-step pharmaceutical calculations and may be more reliable for low complexity calculations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40493330What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.