Deterministic and stochastic interventions in reducing drug–drug interactions in inappropriate prescribing: A systematic review
4 affiliations
- 1Institute for Cybersecurity and Electronic Systems, Centre for Defence Foundation Studies, National Defence University of Malaysia (UPNM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- 2Faculty of Medicine and Defence Health, National Defence University of Malaysia (UPNM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- 3Department of Defence Science, Faculty of Defence Science and Technology, National Defence University of Malaysia (UPNM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- 4Department of Mathematics, Centre for Defence Foundation Studies, National Defence University of Malaysia (UPNM), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Abstract
Background: Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) remain a major contributor to preventable patient harm, particularly in the context of polypharmacy. Over the past two decades, interventions to mitigate inappropriate prescribing have evolved from deterministic, rule-based clinical decision support toward increasingly complex data-driven and stochastic models. However, the extent to which these methodological advances translate into improved clinical safety remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines, guided by the SPIDER framework. PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore were searched from inception to October 2025 for primary studies evaluating computational or clinical decision support interventions aimed at reducing DDIs or inappropriate prescribing. Eligible studies included deterministic rule-based systems, ontological frameworks, and artificial intelligence-driven predictive models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, extended with artificial intelligence-specific considerations (PROBAST+AI). Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures, findings were synthesized narratively. Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Earlier interventions predominantly employed deterministic approaches focused on workflow optimization, alert management, and policy enforcement, demonstrating modest improvements in prescribing processes but inconsistent links to patient-level outcomes. More recent studies applied stochastic and generative models using high-dimensional clinical datasets to predict DDIs, reporting strong internal performance metrics. However, PROBAST+AI assessment identified a consistently high risk of bias in the analysis domain for AI-driven studies, primarily due to limited external validation, insufficient calibration reporting, and unclear handling of overfitting and data leakage. Conclusions: While stochastic and generative models offer enhanced predictive capacity for DDI detection, current evidence does not demonstrate a proportional improvement in clinically reliable decision support. Deterministic systems provide transparency and safety constraints but lack adaptability to patient-specific contexts. Future interventions must prioritize hybrid architectures that integrate explainable rule-based guardrails with rigorously validated stochastic models to ensure that methodological complexity yields reproducible gains in patient safety.
Related
- The Negative Externalities of Lying and of Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing
- Effectiveness of green health prescribing and nature-based interventions in primary care and community settings for older adults: a systematic review of health, wellbeing and social outcomes
- EHR-Based Quality Interventions Associated With Differential GDMT Prescribing in Community Versus Academic Hospitals
- Mathematical analysis of a delayed SEIRDS epidemics models: deterministic and stochastic approach
- Investigating the deterministic and stochastic dynamics of Monkeypox: a hybrid numerical approach using spectral method and feedforward neural networks
BibTeX
@article{zuber2026deterministic,
title = {{Deterministic and stochastic interventions in reducing drug–drug interactions in inappropriate prescribing: A systematic review}},
author = {Muhammad Fahmi Ahmad Zuber and Nur Aishah Che Roos and Ruzanna Mat Jusoh and Nurulhuda A Manaf},
journal = {PLOS One},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0356883},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356883},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Deterministic and stochastic interventions in reducing drug–drug interactions in inappropriate prescribing: A systematic review
AU - Muhammad Fahmi Ahmad Zuber
AU - Nur Aishah Che Roos
AU - Ruzanna Mat Jusoh
AU - Nurulhuda A Manaf
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/17
JO - PLOS One
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0356883
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356883
AB - Background: Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) remain a major contributor to preventable patient harm, particularly in the context of polypharmacy. Over the past two decades, interventions to mitigate inappropriate prescribing have evolved from deterministic, rule-based clinical decision support toward increasingly complex data-driven and stochastic models. However, the extent to which these methodological advances translate into improved clinical safety remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines, guided by the SPIDER framework. PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and IEEE Xplore were searched from inception to October 2025 for primary studies evaluating computational or clinical decision support interventions aimed at reducing DDIs or inappropriate prescribing. Eligible studies included deterministic rule-based systems, ontological frameworks, and artificial intelligence-driven predictive models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool, extended with artificial intelligence-specific considerations (PROBAST+AI). Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures, findings were synthesized narratively. Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Earlier interventions predominantly employed deterministic approaches focused on workflow optimization, alert management, and policy enforcement, demonstrating modest improvements in prescribing processes but inconsistent links to patient-level outcomes. More recent studies applied stochastic and generative models using high-dimensional clinical datasets to predict DDIs, reporting strong internal performance metrics. However, PROBAST+AI assessment identified a consistently high risk of bias in the analysis domain for AI-driven studies, primarily due to limited external validation, insufficient calibration reporting, and unclear handling of overfitting and data leakage. Conclusions: While stochastic and generative models offer enhanced predictive capacity for DDI detection, current evidence does not demonstrate a proportional improvement in clinically reliable decision support. Deterministic systems provide transparency and safety constraints but lack adaptability to patient-specific contexts. Future interventions must prioritize hybrid architectures that integrate explainable rule-based guardrails with rigorously validated stochastic models to ensure that methodological complexity yields reproducible gains in patient safety.
SN - 1932-6203
ER -