Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42114154›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

AI-Based Automation for Medication Reconciliation: Scoping Review.

Juan Pablo Tabja Bortesi, Maria P Becerra, Jonathan Ranisau, Bonnie Wen, Praveen Nadesan, P J Devereaux, Michael McGillion, Jeremy Petch

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. AI-Based Automation for Medication Reconciliation: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 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

8 authors.

Juan Pablo Tabja BortesiCentre for Data Science and Digital Health, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1631-5165
Maria P BecerraCentre for Data Science and Digital Health, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4127-4660
Jonathan RanisauCentre for Data Science and Digital Health, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1178-7510
Bonnie WenFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-4330-9609
Praveen NadesanMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9685-1235
P J DevereauxMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2935-637X
Michael McGillionPopulation Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1343-7012
Jeremy PetchCentre for Data Science and Digital Health, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1614-1046

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) has the potential to improve patient safety by enhancing the continuity of medication information across settings. MedRec involves 3 core tasks: the creation of a best possible medication history, the identification of medication discrepancies among medication lists, and the resolution of medication discrepancies. While artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve MedRec, existing reviews have not identified the ways in which researchers have used AI to facilitate MedRec tasks and their constituent subtasks or the level of automation achieved. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map how previous research has applied AI to MedRec tasks and subtasks and assess the extent of automation achieved. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Compendex in June 2024 for studies that used AI to support a MedRec task or subtask, excluding entirely rule-based tools or studies focused on other aspects of medication management. After screening 2345 unique records, we conducted backward citation searching of studies included at the full-text stage, identifying an additional 795 unique records. We used a 4-stage model of human information processing as a structural lens to guide our considerations of automation, mapping the core tasks of MedRec onto this model. Results: A total of 94 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies addressed subtasks related to the creation of a best possible medication history. Only 2.1% (n=2) of the studies also addressed the identification of discrepancies. Thus, the highest stage of automated information processing achieved was information analysis, although most studies (92/94, 97.9%) only automated information acquisition steps. Most studies (67/94, 71.3%) used free-text clinical notes from the electronic health record, although a significant proportion (21/94, 22.3%) used images of pills or images of other medication-related items. Studies using text-based data used a variety of machine learning methods (eg, recurrent neural networks, conditional random fields, support vector machines, and transformers), whereas those that leveraged images typically used convolutional neural networks. Most studies (61/94, 64.9%) used publicly available data from benchmarking datasets (eg, n2c2 2022) and were strictly model development studies, with only 1.1% (n=1) being usability studies. Conclusions: This is the first review to consider the role of AI in the automation of MedRec tasks, offering a basis for prioritizing future development efforts. Current applications of AI to automate MedRec tasks are preliminary, with most work focusing on the extraction of medication information and limited to proof-of-concept model development. Future work should consider addressing infrastructural barriers to the AI-based automation of MedRec tasks (eg, data incompleteness in sources of medication information) and exploring approaches to automate discrepancy resolution. Beyond developing models, there is also a need to implement them in tools and evaluate them in real-world contexts.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAutomationMedication ReconciliationHumansAIartificial intelligencecontinuity of carehealth ITmachine learningmedication reconciliationpatient safety

Identifiers

PMID42114154
PMCPMC13160534

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.