Accuracy and reproducibility of <scp>ChatGPT</scp> responses to real‐world drug information questions

Abstract Introduction The expanding use of Chat Generative Pre‐Trained Transformer (ChatGPT, OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) for drug information may enhance access to information. However, it is crucial to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT responses to drug information questions, examining its utility and limitations in clinical decision‐making. Objective To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT‐3.5 and ChatGPT‐4 in responding to clinician drug information questions compared with a commonly accepted resource, Lexicomp®(Wolters Kluwer Health, Philadelphia, PA). Methods A serial cross‐sectional study was conducted on ChatGPT from March 5 to 12, 2024 in the United States. ChatGPT‐3.5 is a free, artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot trained up to January 2022; ChatGPT‐4 is a paid‐subscription AI chatbot with internet access and more data. For trial 1 (day 0) we input 30 real‐world questions (10 drug information categories) into both ChatGPT‐3.5 and ChatGPT‐4. For trial 2 (day 1) and 3 (day 7), 10 randomly selected questions were re‐input into ChatGPT. The primary outcome evaluated the accuracy of ChatGPT‐3.5 responses versus (vs.) Lexicomp® using a 4‐point Likert scale. Secondary outcomes included assessing the accuracy of ChatGPT‐4 responses vs. Lexicomp, comparing the accuracy of both ChatGPT versions' responses, and comparing reproducibility of ChatGPT responses over time. Cohen's Kappa and Cochran's Q assessed reproducibility. Results ChatGPT‐3.5 demonstrated 30% accuracy (9/30), while ChatGPT‐4 had 40% (12/30) accuracy ( p = 0.51). Neither ChatGPT versions accurately answered all the questions in any category. ChatGPT‐3.5's agreement between trials 1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, and 2 vs. 3 had fair ( k = 0.21), moderate (k = 0.41), and substantial agreement ( k = 0.62), respectively. ChatGPT‐4 trials 1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, and 2 vs. 3 had fair ( k = 0.23), substantial ( k = 0.80), and fair agreement (0.40). The accuracy of ChatGPT‐3.5 vs. ChatGPT‐4 for the 10 questions across the three trials was 30%, 20%, and 10% ( p = 0.78), and 60%, 40%, and 50% ( p = 0.82). Conclusions Both ChatGPT versions demonstrated limited accuracy and reproducibility in answering drug information questions, suggesting that health care professionals should exercise caution when using ChatGPT for drug information.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JACCP JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY
Published
2025-04-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.70038
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.62
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT responses to real‐world drug information questions

Cynthia A. Jackevicius, Anthony Sengul, Jungyeon Moon, Shikha Khatri
4 citations
JACCP JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
2.62
article

Accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT responses to real‐world drug information questions

Cynthia A. Jackevicius, Anthony Sengul, Jungyeon Moon, Shikha Khatri
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Abstract Introduction The expanding use of Chat Generative Pre‐Trained Transformer (ChatGPT, OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) for drug information may enhance access to information. However, it is crucial to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT responses to drug information questions, examining its utility and limitations in clinical decision‐making. Objective To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT‐3.5 and ChatGPT‐4 in responding to clinician drug information questions compared with a commonly accepted resource, Lexicomp®(Wolters Kluwer Health, Philadelphia, PA). Methods A serial cross‐sectional study was conducted on ChatGPT from March 5 to 12, 2024 in the United States. ChatGPT‐3.5 is a free, artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot trained up to January 2022; ChatGPT‐4 is a paid‐subscription AI chatbot with internet access and more data. For trial 1 (day 0) we input 30 real‐world questions (10 drug information categories) into both ChatGPT‐3.5 and ChatGPT‐4. For trial 2 (day 1) and 3 (day 7), 10 randomly selected questions were re‐input into ChatGPT. The primary outcome evaluated the accuracy of ChatGPT‐3.5 responses versus (vs.) Lexicomp® using a 4‐point Likert scale. Secondary outcomes included assessing the accuracy of ChatGPT‐4 responses vs. Lexicomp, comparing the accuracy of both ChatGPT versions' responses, and comparing reproducibility of ChatGPT responses over time. Cohen's Kappa and Cochran's Q assessed reproducibility. Results ChatGPT‐3.5 demonstrated 30% accuracy (9/30), while ChatGPT‐4 had 40% (12/30) accuracy ( p = 0.51). Neither ChatGPT versions accurately answered all the questions in any category. ChatGPT‐3.5's agreement between trials 1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, and 2 vs. 3 had fair ( k = 0.21), moderate (k = 0.41), and substantial agreement ( k = 0.62), respectively. ChatGPT‐4 trials 1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, and 2 vs. 3 had fair ( k = 0.23), substantial ( k = 0.80), and fair agreement (0.40). The accuracy of ChatGPT‐3.5 vs. ChatGPT‐4 for the 10 questions across the three trials was 30%, 20%, and 10% ( p = 0.78), and 60%, 40%, and 50% ( p = 0.82). Conclusions Both ChatGPT versions demonstrated limited accuracy and reproducibility in answering drug information questions, suggesting that health care professionals should exercise caution when using ChatGPT for drug information.

JACCP JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACYVol. 8(6)
University of Toronto (CA), Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (CA), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (US), Western University of Health Sciences (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
2.62
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.