SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Biodiversity / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1

Evaluation of artificial intelligence tools for the detection of herb–drug interactions

Bitki-ilaç etkileşimlerinin tespitinde yapay zeka araçlarının değerlendirilmesi

Cengizhan Ceylan(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ECZACILIK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-4164-9212
Osman Tugay(SELÇUK ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ECZACILIK FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-3980-7648
Pages
17–21
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, ChatGPT 5.5 provided more accurate and comprehensive information regarding herb–drug interactions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The use of medicinal plants has been increasing both globally and in Türkiye.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Accurate identification of medicinal plants is essential for their safe use.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, ChatGPT 5.5 provided more accurate and comprehensive information regarding herb–drug interactions.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bitki-ilaç etkileşimi · yapay zeka · ChatGPT

Abstract

The use of medicinal plants has been increasing both globally and in Türkiye. Accurate identification of medicinal plants is essential for their safe use. Morphologically similar species may possess markedly different active constituents and toxicity profiles. his study aimed to assess the quality of responses generated by ChatGPT 5.5 and Gemini 3 regarding the identification of thirty medicinal plants commonly used in Türkiye and their potential herb–drug interactions. In the botanical evaluation, the mean score of ChatGPT 5.5 was 4.50 ± 0.78 and that of Gemini was 4.30 ± 0.92. The median score was 5 for both systems. In the herb–drug interaction assessment, the mean scores were 4.80 ± 0.41 and 4.00 ± 0.59 for ChatGPT and Gemini 3. ChatGPT 5.5 showed superior performance in the assessment of herb–drug interactions and did not receive a score below 4 for any of the evaluated questions. ChatGPT 5.5 and Gemini 3 demonstrated promising capabilities in identifying medicinal plants commonly used in Türkiye. However, ChatGPT 5.5 provided more accurate and comprehensive information regarding herb–drug interactions.

Özet

Tıbbi bitkilerin kullanımı hem dünya genelinde hem de Türkiye’de giderek artmaktadır. Tıbbi bitkilerin güvenli kullanımı için bunların doğru bir şekilde tanımlanması hayati önem taşımaktadır. Morfolojik olarak birbirine benzeyen türler, belirgin şekilde farklı aktif bileşenlere ve toksisite profillerine sahip olabilir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de yaygın olarak kullanılan otuz tıbbi bitkinin tanımlanması ve bunların potansiyel bitki-ilaç etkileşimleri konusunda ChatGPT 5.5 ve Gemini 3 tarafından üretilen yanıtların kalitesini değerlendirmeyi amaçlamıştır. Botanik değerlendirmede, ChatGPT 5.5’in ortalama puanı 4,50 ± 0,78, Gemini’nin ise 4.30 ± 0.92 olarak belirlenmiştir. Her iki sistem için de medyan puan 5’tir. Bitki-ilaç etkileşimi değerlendirmesinde, ChatGPT ve Gemini 3 için ortalama puanlar sırasıyla 4.80 ± 0.41 ve 4.00 ± 0.59 olarak belirlendi. ChatGPT 5.5, bitki-ilaç etkileşimlerinin değerlendirilmesinde üstün performans gösterdi ve değerlendirilen soruların hiçbirinde 4'ün altında bir puan almadı. ChatGPT 5.5 ve Gemini 3, Türkiye’de yaygın olarak kullanılan şifalı bitkilerin tanımlanmasında umut verici yetenekler sergilemiştir. Bununla birlikte, ChatGPT 5.5, bitki-ilaç etkileşimleri konusunda daha doğru ve kapsamlı bilgiler sağlamıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ceylan, C., Tugay, O. (2026). Evaluation of artificial intelligence tools for the detection of herb–drug interactions. Turkish Journal of Biodiversity, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 17–21. https://doi.org/10.38059/biodiversity.1974613

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Aksoyalp ZŞ, Erdoğan BR (2024). Comparative evaluation of artificial intelligence and drug interaction tools: a perspective with the example of clopidogrel. Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy of Ankara University 48(3): 1011-1020.
  2. Alghamdi W, Al-Fadel N, Alghamdi EA, Alghamdi M, Alharbi F (2023). Signal detection and assessment of herb–drug interactions: Saudi food and drug authority experience. Drugs-real World Outcomes 10(4): 577.
  3. Amuthalingeswaran C, Sivakumar M, Renuga P, Alexpandi S, Elamathi J, Hari SS (2019). Identification of medicinal plant's and their usage by using deep learning. In: Proceedings of 2019 3rd International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics (ICOEI), pp. 886-890.
  4. Baytop T (1999). Türkiye'de Bitkiler ile Tedavi: Geçmişte ve Bugün. Nobel Tıp Kitabevleri.
  5. Carlà MM, Gambini G, Baldascino A, Boselli F, Giannuzzi F, Margollicci F, Rizzo S (2024). Large language models as assistance for glaucoma surgical cases: a ChatGPT vs. Google Gemini comparison. Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 262(9): 2945-2959.
  6. Carranza-Rojas J, Goeau H, Bonnet P, Mata-Montero E, Joly A (2017). Going deeper in the automated identification of herbarium specimens. BMC Evolutionary Biology 17(1): 181.
  7. Cnudde A, Allely C, Biset N, Champy P, Fouilhé N, Huret F,. Souard F (2024). BABINE: an original and user-friendly scale for the simple and quick management of herb-drug interactions in clinical practice. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies 24(1): 414.
  8. Görgülü Ö (2020). The prevalence of the herbal medicine use in the south of Turkey. Geleneksel ve Tamamlayıcı Tıp Dergisi 3(3): 311-318.
  9. Hsu HY, Chen LW, Hsu WT, Hsieh YW, Chang SS (2025). Extracting clinical guideline information using two large language models: evaluation study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 27: e73486.
  10. Hsu HY, Hsu KC, Hou SY, Wu CL, Hsieh YW, Cheng YD (2023). Examining real-world medication consultations and drug-herb interactions: ChatGPT performance evaluation. JMIR Medical Education 9(1): e48433.
  11. Nithaniyal S, Vassou SL, Poovitha S, Raju B, Parani M (2017). Identification of species adulteration in traded medicinal plant raw drugs using DNA barcoding. Genome 60(2): 139-146.
  12. Puthiyedath R, Pillai ZS (2025). Drug–herb interactions: a challenge and clinical concern in primary healthcare. Frontiers in Medicine 12: 1657005.
  13. Puthiyedath R, Sujithra M, Nedungadi P (2025). Artificial intelligence-driven prediction of drug–herb interactions: a critical need in India's pluralistic health culture and pharmacovigilance framework. International Journal of Ayurveda Research 6(4): 486-494.
  14. Rashrash M, Schommer JC, Brown LM (2017). Prevalence and predictors of herbal medicine use among adults in the United States. Journal of Patient Experience 4(3): 108-113.
  15. Turkmenoglu FP, Kutsal YG, Dolgun AB, Diker Y, Baydar T (2016). Evaluation of herbal product use and possible herb–drug interactions in Turkish elderly. Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice 23: 46-51.
  16. Güner A, Aslan S, Ekim T, Vural M, Babaç MT (eds) (2012). Türkiye Bitkileri Listesi (Damarlı Bitkiler). Nezahat Gökyiğit Botanik Bahçesi ve Flora Araştırmaları Derneği Yayını.
  17. Umar R, Beşiroğlu R, Şahin A, Koçberber E, Ceylan C (2021). Evaluation of medication and herbal product use among pregnant women. Acta Pharmaceutica Sciencia 59(4).
  18. Wäldchen J, Mäder P (2018). Plant species identification using computer vision techniques: a systematic literature review. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering 25(2): 507-543.
  19. Cnudde A, Allely C, Biset N, Champy P, Fouilhé N, Huret F,. Souard F (2024). BABINE: an original and user-friendly scale for the simple and quick management of herb-drug interactions in clinical practice. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies 24(1): 414.