From research directory to public medication evidence website

Introduction

The research began with a practical problem: medication lists are useful, but their differences and missing evidence are often difficult to inspect. A systematic review documents scale variation, and the Anticholinergic Risk Scale illustrates a separately validated source-specific approach. ^{3, 4} The public website was developed to present the research directory without turning an experimental index into a clinical decision rule. ¹

A reader can encounter a published 0–3 category, a source match, an older-adult prescribing flag, and a historical 0–10 calculation for the same ingredient. These are distinct kinds of information. The design objective was to make their provenance and limitations visible at the point of use, so a visitor could ask better questions without mistaking a research index for a patient-specific risk estimate. ¹

Methods

The display specification prioritized ingredient identity, route and formulation uncertainty, UnifiedACB Score status, separately named source ratings, disagreement, older-adult AGS Beers Criteria context, review questions, and citations. A source value is never added to a different scale or converted to the experimental 0–10 model. A missing score is not zero. No account is required to search or submit feedback. ¹

The website flags direct ingredient matches to the 2023 AGS Beers Criteria anticholinergic table as older-adult review prompts, with edition and contextual limits; the flag is separate from the burden scales. Feedback requests source-backed corrections without patient identifiers. AI tools contributed extensively to evidence organization, analysis, writing, and development; potential errors require independent review. ^{1, 2}

The specified result order begins with ingredient and route/formulation, then the model score status, the publication-specific ratings, an explanation of disagreement or missingness, and any qualified historical regimen. An older-adult flag is displayed as a separate prompt to consult the full criteria. Results also point to questions for a treating clinician and the source links. These rules prevent a color, missing field, or illustrative formula result from becoming an unsupported severity band. ¹

Public claims were bounded before release. The site can state that 557 directory records are searchable and that 20 archived calculations exist for qualified regimens; it cannot call them 557 validated scores or 20 clinically validated whole-drug values. The privacy specification excludes patient identifiers and does not represent the site as HIPAA compliant. A future account or analytics feature would require revised privacy and retention practices. ¹

Results

The public site at unifiedacb.com exposes a searchable directory, result and evidence explanations, articles, report downloads, and no-account source-backed feedback. It identifies historical regimen-specific estimates and unresolved entries instead of inventing a complete medication-list score. The research release and public website are separate versioned milestones. ¹

No user-outcome, usability, or clinical-impact study is reported here. Public ratings and suggestions may help prioritize corrections, but they are not a validation dataset. ¹

The initial implementation carries five named scale families side by side and leaves all general medication-list UnifiedACB Scores unassigned. The direct Beers ingredient flag is labeled with its 2023 edition and limited scope. The website provides individual source views, a summary and detailed PDF report, an Evidence guide, and a correction intake that does not change a drug record automatically. ^{1, 2}

This report describes website publication and display behavior, not a comparative effectiveness evaluation. Visitor ratings are unverified opinions and can be influenced by who chooses to respond. Submitted corrections require a provenance check and adjudication before a future data release. ¹

Discussion

The website makes uncertainty visible and can help clinicians, pharmacists, researchers, patients, and caregivers ask more focused questions. Its outputs can still contain identity, source, calculation, or wording errors. The site is not represented as HIPAA compliant; patient identifiers should not be submitted. It does not diagnose, prescribe, or estimate an individual's risk. Medication changes require a qualified clinician's judgment. ¹

The next phase is versioned correction review, source verification, and independent dose-aware outcome work. The site will retain dated methods and report null findings alongside positive ones. ¹

A public change log can distinguish editorial changes from changes to medication identities, source values, model eligibility, or research claims. Accepted evidence corrections should name the affected record and source without exposing visitor details. An updated website article does not revise the source PDF or retroactively alter a frozen cohort used in an earlier outcome analysis. ¹

Public availability is not evidence that clinical review is complete. The remaining work includes primary supplement row checks, active-metabolite and formulation review, more complete exposure inputs, and external outcome validation. Future independent clinician or pharmacist editorial assessment should examine both scientific accuracy and whether the result language is understandable to its intended users. ¹

References (AMA style)

1. Chaar M. Public claims and safety specification: website copy, display rules, privacy and review. Unified ACB Tool; 2026. Published September 28, 2026. Source ↗
2. American Geriatrics Society 2023 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated AGS Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023;71(7):2052-2081. doi:10.1111/jgs.18372 Source ↗
3. Rudolph JL, Salow MJ, Angelini MC, McGlinchey RE. The anticholinergic risk scale and anticholinergic adverse effects in older persons. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(5):508-513. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2007.106 Source ↗
4. Vennard O, Stewart C, Tolia M, Soiza RL, Myint PK. Anticholinergic medication burden scales: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2026;74(6):1771-1784. doi:10.1111/jgs.70352 Source ↗