The Pharmacy Data Commons Needed for Safe and Equitable Algorithm Development

Pharmacy algorithms are increasingly developed from data dispersed across dispensing systems, electronic health records, claims, laboratories, pharmacovigilance repositories, and patient-facing technologies. Fragmentation is not only a technical inconvenience: inconsistent semantics, incomplete provenance, selective representation, unclear permissions, and weak accountability can propagate into algorithm development and medication-related decisions. This article proposes a pharmacy data commons as a governed, distributed capability for responsible data access, documentation, harmonization, analysis, evaluation, and benefit sharing. The commons is not defined as a single pooled database. Its proposed architecture links participating data assets, semantic and provenance services, computable use permissions, representation profiles, privacy-preserving analysis environments, institutional decision rights, community participation, and explicit boundaries between model output and professional medication authority. Access is treated as a conditional lifecycle rather than a one-time approval, with stewardship, representation review, safety and equity evaluation, output review, monitoring, incident learning, and retirement. Commons performance should therefore be assessed across data fitness, interoperability, provenance, access consistency, privacy, representation, human–AI workflow, medication-safety risk, community legitimacy, distributive benefit, and sustainability. Validation would require multisite technical audits, external and subgroup evaluation, human-factors studies, safety assessment, governance-process evaluation, privacy testing, and community-defined measures of legitimacy and benefit. The proposal remains non-empirical and context-dependent. It does not establish clinical benefit, regulatory acceptability, fairness, lawful use, or deployment readiness. Its original contribution is an integrated governance architecture that makes the conditions for safe and equitable pharmacy-algorithm development visible, testable, and contestable.

1. Hatzimanolis J, Riley B, El-Den S, Aslani P, Zhou J, Chaar BB. Applications of artificial intelligence in current pharmacy practice: A scoping review. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2025;21(3):134-41. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.12.007
2. Ranchon F, Chanoine S, Lambert-Lacroix S, Bosson JL, Moreau-Gaudry A, Bedouch P. Development of artificial intelligence powered apps and tools for clinical pharmacy services: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2023;172:104983. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104983
3. Lehne M, Sass J, Essenwanger A, Schepers J, Thun S. Why digital medicine depends on interoperability. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2:79. doi:10.1038/s41746-019-0158-1
4. Gianfrancesco MA, Tamang S, Yazdany J, Schmajuk G. Potential biases in machine learning algorithms using electronic health record data. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(11):1544-7. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3763
5. Sutton RT, Pincock D, Baumgart DC, Sadowski DC, Fedorak RN, Kroeker KI. An overview of clinical decision support systems: Benefits, risks, and strategies for success. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:17. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0221-y
6. Boeckhout M, Zielhuis GA, Bredenoord AL. The FAIR guiding principles for data stewardship: Fair enough? Eur J Hum Genet. 2018;26(7):931-6. doi:10.1038/s41431-018-0160-0
7. Wise J, de Barron AG, Splendiani A, Balali-Mood B, Vasant D, Little E, et al. Implementation and relevance of FAIR data principles in biopharmaceutical R&D. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(4):933-8. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2019.01.008
8. Lawson J, Cabili MN, Kerry G, Boughtwood T, Thorogood A, Alper P, et al. The Data Use Ontology to streamline responsible access to human biomedical datasets. Cell Genom. 2021;1(2):100028. doi:10.1016/j.xgen.2021.100028
9. Gebru T, Morgenstern J, Vecchione B, Vaughan JW, Wallach H, Daumé H III, et al. Datasheets for datasets. Commun ACM. 2021;64(12):86-92. doi:10.1145/3458723
10. Rieke N, Hancox J, Li W, Milletarì F, Roth HR, Albarqouni S, et al. The future of digital health with federated learning. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:119. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-00323-1
11. Kaissis GA, Makowski MR, Rückert D, Braren RF. Secure, privacy-preserving and federated machine learning in medical imaging. Nat Mach Intell. 2020;2(6):305-11. doi:10.1038/s42256-020-0186-1
12. Sheller MJ, Edwards B, Reina GA, Martin J, Pati S, Kotrotsou A, et al. Federated learning in medicine: Facilitating multi-institutional collaborations without sharing patient data. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12598. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-69250-1
13. Lenert LA, Ilatovskiy AV, Agnew J, Rudisill P, Jacobs J, Weatherston D, et al. Automated production of research data marts from a canonical fast healthcare interoperability resource data repository: Applications to COVID-19 research. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021;28(8):1605-11. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocab108
14. Dayan I, Roth HR, Zhong A, Harouni A, Gentili A, Abidin AZ, et al. Federated learning for predicting clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2021;27(10):1735-43. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01506-3
15. Warnat-Herresthal S, Schultze H, Shastry KL, Manamohan S, Mukherjee S, Garg V, et al. Swarm learning for decentralized and confidential clinical machine learning. Nature. 2021;594(7862):265-70. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03583-3
16. Cabili MN, Lawson J, Saltzman A, Rushton G, O’Rourke P, Wilbanks J, et al. Empirical validation of an automated approach to data use oversight. Cell Genom. 2021;1(2):100031. doi:10.1016/j.xgen.2021.100031
17. Lewis AE, Weiskopf N, Abrams ZB, Foraker R, Lai AM, Payne PRO, et al. Electronic health record data quality assessment and tools: A systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023;30(10):1730-40. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocad120
18. Alderman JE, Palmer J, Laws E, McCradden MD, Ordish J, Ghassemi M, et al. Tackling algorithmic bias and promoting transparency in health datasets: The STANDING Together consensus recommendations. Lancet Digit Health. 2025;7(1). doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(24)00224-3
19. Rehm HL, Page AJH, Smith L, Adams JB, Alterovitz G, Babb LJ, et al. GA4GH: International policies and standards for data sharing across genomic research and healthcare. Cell Genom. 2021;1(2):100029. doi:10.1016/j.xgen.2021.100029
20. Obermeyer Z, Powers B, Vogeli C, Mullainathan S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations. Science. 2019;366(6464):447-53. doi:10.1126/science.aax2342
21. Rajkomar A, Hardt M, Howell MD, Corrado G, Chin MH. Ensuring fairness in machine learning to advance health equity. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(12):866-72. doi:10.7326/M18-1990
22. Kalkman S, van Delden JJM, Banerjee A, Tyl B, Mostert M, van Thiel GJMW. Patients’ and public views and attitudes towards the sharing of health data for research: A narrative review of the empirical evidence. J Med Ethics. 2022;48(1):3-13. doi:10.1136/medethics-2019-105651
23. Bazzano AN, Mantsios A, Mattei N, Kosorok MR, Culotta A. AI can be a powerful social innovation for public health if community engagement is at the core. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27. doi:10.2196/68198