Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40306628›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Use of Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Model for COVID-19 Fact-Checking: Development and Usability Study.

Hai Li, Jingyi Huang, Mengmeng Ji, Yuyi Yang, Ruopeng An

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Hai Li *School of Economics and Management, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2510-5103
Jingyi Huang *School of Economics and Management, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4555-0797
Mengmeng JiDepartment of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1205-0369
Yuyi YangDivision of Computational and Data Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7625-810X
Ruopeng AnConstance and Martin Silver Center on Data Science and Social Equity, Silver School of Social Work, New York University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9632-0209

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

COVID-19Information Storage and RetrievalHumansLarge Language ModelsSARS-CoV-2accuracyartificial intelligenceChatGPTcoronavirusCOVID-19disinformationfact-checkinginfectiousinfodemiclarge language modelmachine learningmisinformationnatural language processingpandemicpulmonaryrespiratoryretrieval-augmented generationSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID40306628
PMCPMC12079058

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.