Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39167594›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2024

Improving accuracy of GPT-3/4 results on biomedical data using a retrieval-augmented language model.

David Soong, Sriram Sridhar, Han Si, Jan-Samuel Wagner, Ana Caroline Costa Sá, Christina Y Yu, Kubra Karagoz, Meijian Guan, Sanyam Kumar, Hisham Hamadeh and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

David SoongTranslational Data Sciences, Genmab, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Sriram SridharTranslational Data Sciences, Genmab, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0679-4544
Han SiTranslational Data Sciences, Genmab, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Jan-Samuel WagnerData Sciences and AI, Genmab, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Ana Caroline Costa SáTranslational Data Sciences, Genmab, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Christina Y YuTranslational Data Sciences, Genmab, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Kubra KaragozTranslational Data Sciences, Genmab, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Meijian GuanTranslational Data Sciences, Genmab, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Sanyam KumarCommercial Data Sciences, Genmab, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Hisham HamadehData Sciences and AI, Genmab, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.
Brandon W HiggsTranslational Data Sciences, Genmab, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have made a significant impact on the fields of general artificial intelligence. General purpose LLMs exhibit strong logic and reasoning skills and general world knowledge but can sometimes generate misleading results when prompted on specific subject areas. LLMs trained with domain-specific knowledge can reduce the generation of misleading information (i.e. hallucinations) and enhance the precision of LLMs in specialized contexts. Training new LLMs on specific corpora however can be resource intensive. Here we explored the use of a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) model which we tested on literature specific to a biomedical research area. OpenAI's GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Microsoft's Prometheus, and a custom RAG model were used to answer 19 questions pertaining to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) disease biology and treatment. Eight independent reviewers assessed LLM responses based on accuracy, relevance, and readability, rating responses on a 3-point scale for each category. These scores were then used to compare LLM performance. The performance of the LLMs varied across scoring categories. On accuracy and relevance, the RAG model outperformed other models with higher scores on average and the most top scores across questions. GPT-4 was more comparable to the RAG model on relevance versus accuracy. By the same measures, GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 had the highest scores for readability of answers when compared to the other LLMs. GPT-4 and 3.5 also had more answers with hallucinations than the other LLMs, due to non-existent references and inaccurate responses to clinical questions. Our findings suggest that an oncology research-focused RAG model may outperform general-purpose LLMs in accuracy and relevance when answering subject-related questions. This framework can be tailored to Q&A in other subject areas. Further research will help understand the impact of LLM architectures, RAG methodologies, and prompting techniques in answering questions across different subject areas.

Identifiers

PMID39167594
PMCPMC11338460

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.