Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2409.01903

A randomized simulation trial evaluating ABiMed, a clinical decision support system for medication reviews and polypharmacy management

Abdelmalek Mouazer·Sophie Dubois·Romain Léguillon·Nada Boudegzdame·Thibaud Levrard·Yoann Le Bars·Christian Simon·Brigitte Séroussi·Julien Grosjean·Romain Lelong·Catherine Letord·Stéfan Darmoni·Karima Sedki·Pierre Meneton·Rosy Tsopra·Hector Falcoff·Jean-Baptiste Lamy
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Background: Medication review is a structured interview of the patient, performed by the pharmacist and aimed at optimizing drug treatments. In practice, medication review is a long and cognitively-demanding task that requires specific knowledge. Clinical practice guidelines have been proposed, but their application is tedious. Methods: We designed ABiMed, a clinical decision support system for medication reviews, based on the implementation of the STOPP/START v2 guidelines and on the visual presentation of aggregated drug knowledge using tables, graphs and flower glyphs. We evaluated ABiMed with 39 community pharmacists during a randomized simulation trial, each pharmacist performing a medication review for two fictitious patients without ABiMed, and two others with ABiMed. We recorded the problems identified by the pharmacists, the interventions proposed, the response time, the perceived usability and the comments. Pharmacists' medication reviews were compared to an expert-designed gold standard. Results: With ABiMed, pharmacists found 1.6 times more relevant drug-related problems during the medication review (p=1.1e-12) and proposed better interventions (p=9.8e-9), without needing more time (p=0.56). The System Usability Scale score is 82.7, which is ranked "excellent". In their comments, pharmacists appreciated the visual aspect of ABiMed and its ability to compare the current treatment with the proposed one. A multifactor analysis showed no difference in the support offered by ABiMed according to the pharmacist's age or sex, in terms of percentage of problems identified or quality of the proposed interventions. Conclusions: The use of an intelligent and visual clinical decision support system can help pharmacists when they perform medication reviews. Our main perspective is the validation of the system in clinical conditions.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.HC

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Abdelmalek Mouazer, Sophie Dubois, Romain Léguillon, Nada Boudegzdame, Thibaud Levrard, Yoann Le Bars, Christian Simon, Brigitte Séroussi, Julien Grosjean, Romain Lelong, Catherine Letord, Stéfan Darmoni, Karima Sedki, Pierre Meneton, Rosy Tsopra, Hector Falcoff, Jean-Baptiste Lamy. 2024-09-03. A randomized simulation trial evaluating ABiMed, a clinical decision support system for medication reviews and polypharmacy management. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.01903

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗