ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Use of Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Model for COVID-19 Fact-Checking: Development and Usability Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intelligent Framework for Adverse Drug Event Identification Using Large Language Models and Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Development and Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Evaluation Methods for Inference-Time Retrieval-Augmented and Graph Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models in Health Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Authoritative Textbook-Augmented Large Language Models for High-Altitude Public Health Medical Education in the Xizang Autonomous Region: Cross-Sectional Comparative Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- APMSR: an intelligent QA system for synthetic biology empowered by adaptive prompting and multi-source knowledge retrieval.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Large language models in emergency and critical care medicine: a comprehensive review of applications, challenges, and future directions.Burns & trauma · 2026Review
- Performance of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Large Language Models in Guideline-Concordant Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing: Comparative Study With Junior Clinicians.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- The Development and Evaluation of a Retrieval-Augmented Generation Large Language Model Virtual Assistant for Postoperative Instructions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models and Retrieval-Augmented Generation Enhancement for Delivering Guideline-Adherent Nutrition Information for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Use of Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Model for COVID-19 Fact-Checking: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- The generative illusion: how ChatGPT-like AI tools could reinforce misinformation and mistrust in public health communication.Frontiers in public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an "infodemic," where the rapid spread of misinformation has exacerbated public health challenges. Traditional fact-checking methods, though effective, are time-consuming and resource-intensive, limiting their ability to combat misinformation at scale. Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 offer a more scalable solution, but their susceptibility to generating hallucinations-plausible yet incorrect information-compromises their reliability.
objectiveThis study aims to enhance the accuracy and reliability of COVID-19 fact-checking by integrating a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system with LLMs, specifically addressing the limitations of hallucination and context inaccuracy inherent in stand-alone LLMs.
methodsWe constructed a context dataset comprising approximately 130,000 peer-reviewed papers related to COVID-19 from PubMed and Scopus. This dataset was integrated with GPT-4 to develop multiple RAG-enhanced models: the naïve RAG, Lord of the Retrievers (LOTR)-RAG, corrective RAG (CRAG), and self-RAG (SRAG). The RAG systems were designed to retrieve relevant external information, which was then embedded and indexed in a vector store for similarity searches. One real-world dataset and one synthesized dataset, each containing 500 claims, were used to evaluate the performance of these models. Each model's accuracy, F
resultsThe baseline GPT-4 model achieved an accuracy of 0.856 on the real-world dataset. The naïve RAG model improved this to 0.946, while the LOTR-RAG model further increased accuracy to 0.951. The CRAG and SRAG models outperformed all others, achieving accuracies of 0.972 and 0.973, respectively. The baseline GPT-4 model reached an accuracy of 0.960 on the synthesized dataset. The naïve RAG model increased this to 0.972, and the LOTR-RAG, CRAG, and SRAG models achieved an accuracy of 0.978. These findings demonstrate that the RAG-enhanced models consistently maintained high accuracy levels, closely mirroring ground-truth labels and significantly reducing hallucinations. The CRAG and SRAG models also provided more detailed and contextually accurate explanations, further establishing the superiority of agentic RAG frameworks in delivering reliable and precise fact-checking outputs across diverse datasets.
conclusionsThe integration of RAG systems with LLMs substantially improves the accuracy and contextual relevance of automated fact-checking. By reducing hallucinations and enhancing transparency by citing retrieved sources, this method holds significant promise for rapid, reliable information verification to combat misinformation during public health crises.
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.