ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Evaluation of a retrieval-augmented generation system using a Japanese Institutional Nuclear Medicine Manual and large language model-automated scoring.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Radiology: A Scoping Review of Architectures, Imaging Applications, and Directions for Equitable Deployment.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Review
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
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) enable domain-specific question answering using external knowledge. However, addressing information that is not included in training data remains a challenge, particularly in nuclear medicine, where examination protocols are frequently updated and vary across institutions. In this study, we developed a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system using 40 internal manuals from a single Japanese hospital, each corresponding to a different examination in nuclear medicine. These institution-specific documents were segmented and indexed using a hybrid retrieval strategy combining dense vector search (text-embedding-3-small) and sparse keyword search (BM25). GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o were used with the OpenAI application programming interface (API) for response generation. The quality of the generated answers was assessed using a four-point Likert scale by three certified radiological technologists, of which one held an additional certification in nuclear medicine and another held an additional certification in medical physics. Automated evaluation was conducted using RAGAS metrics, including factual correctness and context recall. The GPT-4o model combined with hybrid retrieval achieved the highest performance, as per expert evaluations. Although traditional string-based metrics such as ROUGE and the Levenshtein distance poorly align with human ratings, RAGAS provided consistent rankings across system configurations, despite showing only a modest correlation with manual scores. These findings demonstrate that integrating examination-specific institutional manuals into RAG frameworks can effectively support domain-specific question answering in nuclear medicine. Moreover, LLM-based evaluation methods such as RAGAS may serve as practical tools to complement expert reviews in developing healthcare-oriented artificial intelligence systems.
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.