Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40185842›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025

Retrieval augmented generation for 10 large language models and its generalizability in assessing medical fitness.

Yu He Ke, Liyuan Jin, Kabilan Elangovan, Hairil Rizal Abdullah, Nan Liu, Alex Tiong Heng Sia, Chai Rick Soh, Joshua Yi Min Tung, Jasmine Chiat Ling Ong, Chang-Fu Kuo and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06949462 (Evaluating the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Anaesthesia and Procedural Consent), which is not on this map. Cited by 63 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing 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.

NCT06949462 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Anaesthesia and Procedural Consent: A Comparative Analysis With Traditional Patient Consent Methods

TypeinterventionalSponsorSingapore General HospitalRan2026 to 2026Enrolled120ConditionsConsent Forms, Anesthesia, Artificial Intelligence (AI)ArmsPEAR
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 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. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

13 authors.

Yu He Ke *Department of Anesthesiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Liyuan Jin *Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Kabilan ElangovanSingapore Health Services, Artificial Intelligence Office, Singapore, Singapore.
Hairil Rizal AbdullahDepartment of Anesthesiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Nan LiuDuke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Alex Tiong Heng SiaDuke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Chai Rick SohDepartment of Anesthesiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Joshua Yi Min TungData Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Jasmine Chiat Ling OngDuke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Chang-Fu KuoDepartment of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Shao-Chun WuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC.
Vesela P KovachevaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Daniel Shu Wei TingDuke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. daniel.ting45@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) hold promise for medical applications but often lack domain-specific expertise. Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) enables customization by integrating specialized knowledge. This study assessed the accuracy, consistency, and safety of LLM-RAG models in determining surgical fitness and delivering preoperative instructions using 35 local and 23 international guidelines. Ten LLMs (e.g., GPT3.5, GPT4, GPT4o, Gemini, Llama2, and Llama3, Claude) were tested across 14 clinical scenarios. A total of 3234 responses were generated and compared to 448 human-generated answers. The GPT4 LLM-RAG model with international guidelines generated answers within 20 s and achieved the highest accuracy, which was significantly better than human-generated responses (96.4% vs. 86.6%, p = 0.016). Additionally, the model exhibited an absence of hallucinations and produced more consistent output than humans. This study underscores the potential of GPT-4-based LLM-RAG models to deliver highly accurate, efficient, and consistent preoperative assessments.

Identifiers

PMID40185842
PMCPMC11971376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.