Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40517195›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025

Semantic Search of FDA Guidance Documents Using Generative AI.

Scott Proestel, Linda J B Jeng, Christopher Smith, Matthew Deady, Omar Amer, Mohamed Ahmed, Sarah Rodgers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Scott ProestelDivision of Biomedical Informatics, Research, and Biomarker Development, Office of Drug Evaluation Sciences, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Linda J B JengDivision of Biomedical Informatics, Research, and Biomarker Development, Office of Drug Evaluation Sciences, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA. linda.jeng@fda.hhs.gov.
Christopher SmithDivision of Biomedical Informatics, Research, and Biomarker Development, Office of Drug Evaluation Sciences, Office of New Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Matthew DeadyInternational Business Machines (IBM), Washington D.C, USA.
Omar AmerInternational Business Machines (IBM), Washington D.C, USA.
Mohamed AhmedInternational Business Machines (IBM), Washington D.C, USA.
Sarah RodgersInternational Business Machines (IBM), Washington D.C, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionGenerative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform and accelerate how information is accessed during the regulation of human drug and biologic products.

objectivesDetermine whether a generative AI-supported application with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) architecture can be used to correctly answer questions about the information contained in FDA guidance documents.

methodsFive large language models (LLMs): Flan-UL2, GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, Granite, and Llama 2, were evaluated in conjunction with the RAG application Golden Retriever to assess their ability to answer questions about the information contained in clinically oriented FDA guidance documents. Models were configured to precise mode with a low temperature parameter setting to generate precise, non-creative answers, ensuring reliable clinical regulatory review guidance for users.

resultsDuring preliminary testing, GPT-4 Turbo was the highest performing LLM. It was therefore selected for additional evaluation where it generated a correct response with additional helpful information 33.9% of the time, a correct response 35.7% of the time, a response with some of the required correct information 17.0% of the time, and a response with any incorrect information 13.4% of the time. The RAG application was able to cite the correct source document 89.2% of the time.

conclusionThe ability of the generative AI application to identify the correct guidance document and answer questions could significantly reduce the time in finding the correct answer for questions about FDA guidance documents. However, as the information in FDA guidance documents may be relied on by sponsors and FDA staff to guide important drug development decisions, the use of incorrect information could have a significantly negative impact on the drug development process. Based on our results, the correct citation documents can be used to reduce the time in finding the correct document that contains the information, but further research into the refinement of generative AI will likely be required before this tool can be relied on to answer questions about information contained in FDA guidance documents. Rephrasing questions by including additional context information, reconfiguring the embedding and chunking parameters, and other prompt engineering techniques may improve the rate of fully correct and complete responses.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationHumansSemanticsUnited StatesDocument searchFDA guidanceGenerative AILarge language model

Identifiers

PMID40517195
PMCPMC12446095

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.