ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Creating a biomedical knowledge base by addressing GPT inaccurate responses and benchmarking context.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Transforming dementia caregiver support with AI-powered social robotics.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We created GNQA, a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) knowledge base driven by a performant retrieval augmented generation (RAG) with a focus on aging, dementia, Alzheimer's and diabetes. We uploaded a corpus of three thousand peer reviewed publications on these topics into the RAG. To address concerns about inaccurate responses and GPT 'hallucinations', we implemented a context provenance tracking mechanism that enables researchers to validate responses against the original material and to get references to the original papers. To assess the effectiveness of contextual information we collected evaluations and feedback from both domain expert users and 'citizen scientists' on the relevance of GPT responses. A key innovation of our study is automated evaluation by way of a RAG assessment system (RAGAS). RAGAS combines human expert assessment with AI-driven evaluation to measure the effectiveness of RAG systems. When evaluating the responses to their questions, human respondents give a "thumbs-up" 76% of the time. Meanwhile, RAGAS scores 90% on answer relevance on questions posed by experts. And when GPT-generates questions, RAGAS scores 74% on answer relevance. With RAGAS we created a benchmark that can be used to continuously assess the performance of our knowledge base. Full GNQA functionality is embedded in the free GeneNetwork.org web service, an open-source system containing over 25 years of experimental data on model organisms and human. The code developed for this study is published under a free and open-source software license at https://git.genenetwork.org/gn-ai/tree/README.md.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.