Sequential vancomycin trough and dosing interval prediction in ICU patients using general purpose large language models: a head-to-head comparison of ChatGPT and GROK AI.
Azfar Athar Ishaqui, Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Emad Ali Alsaleh, Rayah Asiri, Saira Faraz Shah, Amer Hayat Khan, Khalid Orayj, Salman Ashfaq Ahmad, Muhammad Imran, Narendar Kumar, Adnan Iqbal, Muhammad Bilal Maqsood
{"title":"Sequential vancomycin trough and dosing interval prediction in ICU patients using general purpose large language models: a head-to-head comparison of ChatGPT and GROK AI.","authors":"Azfar Athar Ishaqui, Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Emad Ali Alsaleh, Rayah Asiri, Saira Faraz Shah, Amer Hayat Khan, Khalid Orayj, Salman Ashfaq Ahmad, Muhammad Imran, Narendar Kumar, Adnan Iqbal, Muhammad Bilal Maqsood","doi":"10.1080/14787210.2026.2721559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Vancomycin monitoring remains challenging due to fluctuating renal function and ICU physiology. This study compares ChatGPT and Grok for predicting sequential vancomycin trough levels and dosing intervals across varying renal function.</p><p><strong>Research design and methods: </strong>This retrospective study used deidentified MIMIC-IV ICU data. Admissions with three sequential vancomycin troughs and complete dosing history were included (239 admissions, 717 predictions: T1-T3). Structured clinical snapshots were submitted to both models to predict trough concentrations (mg/L) and dosing intervals (hours). Performance was assessed using MAE, RMSE, bias, ±2 mg/L and ±2-hour accuracy, sequence success, and generalized estimating equations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT outperformed Grok in trough prediction (MAE 4.07 vs 5.08 mg/L; RMSE 5.55 vs 7.53 mg/L; ±2 mg/L accuracy 37.0% vs 29.0%), with greater advantage at T1/T2 and in renal dysfunction. Grok was superior for interval prediction (MAE 1.36 vs 1.61 hours; RMSE 2.09 vs 2.98 hours). ChatGPT achieved more successful trough sequences (≥2/3 within ±2 mg/L: 35.1% vs 23.0%), while Grok had more accurate interval sequences (all 3 within ±2 hours: 67.8% vs 59.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings represent comparative model benchmarking and require validation against pharmacist-led therapeutic drug monitoring and Bayesian AUC-guided dosing platforms before clinical use.</p>","PeriodicalId":12213,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2026.2721559","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objectives: Vancomycin monitoring remains challenging due to fluctuating renal function and ICU physiology. This study compares ChatGPT and Grok for predicting sequential vancomycin trough levels and dosing intervals across varying renal function.
Research design and methods: This retrospective study used deidentified MIMIC-IV ICU data. Admissions with three sequential vancomycin troughs and complete dosing history were included (239 admissions, 717 predictions: T1-T3). Structured clinical snapshots were submitted to both models to predict trough concentrations (mg/L) and dosing intervals (hours). Performance was assessed using MAE, RMSE, bias, ±2 mg/L and ±2-hour accuracy, sequence success, and generalized estimating equations.
Results: ChatGPT outperformed Grok in trough prediction (MAE 4.07 vs 5.08 mg/L; RMSE 5.55 vs 7.53 mg/L; ±2 mg/L accuracy 37.0% vs 29.0%), with greater advantage at T1/T2 and in renal dysfunction. Grok was superior for interval prediction (MAE 1.36 vs 1.61 hours; RMSE 2.09 vs 2.98 hours). ChatGPT achieved more successful trough sequences (≥2/3 within ±2 mg/L: 35.1% vs 23.0%), while Grok had more accurate interval sequences (all 3 within ±2 hours: 67.8% vs 59.8%).
Conclusions: These findings represent comparative model benchmarking and require validation against pharmacist-led therapeutic drug monitoring and Bayesian AUC-guided dosing platforms before clinical use.
背景和目的:由于肾功能和ICU生理波动,万古霉素监测仍然具有挑战性。本研究比较了ChatGPT和Grok在预测万古霉素连续低谷水平和不同肾功能的给药间隔方面的效果。研究设计和方法:本回顾性研究使用未识别的MIMIC-IV ICU数据。纳入了三个连续万古霉素波谷和完整给药史的患者(239例患者,717例预测:T1-T3)。将结构化的临床快照提交给两个模型,以预测谷浓度(mg/L)和给药间隔(小时)。使用MAE、RMSE、偏倚、±2 mg/L和±2小时精度、序列成功和广义估计方程来评估性能。结果:ChatGPT在低谷预测方面优于Grok (MAE 4.07 vs 5.08 mg/L; RMSE 5.55 vs 7.53 mg/L;±2 mg/L准确度37.0% vs 29.0%),在T1/T2和肾功能不全时具有更大的优势。Grok在间隔预测方面具有优势(MAE 1.36 vs 1.61小时;RMSE 2.09 vs 2.98小时)。ChatGPT在±2 mg/L范围内获得了更成功的槽序列(≥2/3:35.1% vs 23.0%),而Grok获得了更准确的间隔序列(±2小时内所有3个序列:67.8% vs 59.8%)。结论:这些发现代表了比较模型的基准,需要在临床使用前对药剂师主导的治疗药物监测和贝叶斯auc指导的给药平台进行验证。
期刊介绍:
Expert Review of Anti-Infective Therapy (ISSN 1478-7210) provides expert reviews on therapeutics and diagnostics in the treatment of infectious disease. Coverage includes antibiotics, drug resistance, drug therapy, infectious disease medicine, antibacterial, antimicrobial, antifungal and antiviral approaches, and diagnostic tests.