Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41031070›Full record

ArticleArXiv2024

Enhancing Large Language Models with Domain-specific Retrieval Augment Generation: A Case Study on Long-form Consumer Health Question Answering in Ophthalmology.

Aidan Gilson, Xuguang Ai, Thilaka Arunachalam, Ziyou Chen, Ki Xiong Cheong, Amisha Dave, Cameron Duic, Mercy Kibe, Annette Kaminaka, Minali Prasad and 12 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in ArXiv, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. CMedRAGBot: A Chinese Medical Chatbot Based on Graph RAG and Large Language Models.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2025
    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

22 authors.

Aidan GilsonDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, USA.
Xuguang AiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, USA.
Thilaka ArunachalamDivision of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Ziyou ChenSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Ki Xiong CheongSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Amisha DaveDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, USA.
Cameron DuicDivision of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Mercy KibeDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, USA.
Annette KaminakaDivision of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Minali PrasadDivision of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Fares SiddigDivision of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Maxwell SingerDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, USA.
Wendy WongSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Qiao JinNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA.
Tiarnan D L KeenanDivision of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Xia HuDepartment of Computer Science, Rice University, Houston.
Emily Y ChewDivision of Epidemiology and Clinical Applications, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA.
Zhiyong LuNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Maryland, USA.
Hua XuDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, USA.
Ron A AdelmanDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, USA.
Yih-Chung ThamDepartment of Ophthalmology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Qingyu ChenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, USA.

Funding

Natural language processing and medical imaging analysis for multi-modality computer assisted diagnosis of ophthalmic diseasesK99LM014024 · NLM · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CHEN, QINGYU · 2023 to 2023
$92k
NLM NIH HHS K99 LM014024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine, they may generate responses lacking supporting evidence or based on hallucinated evidence. While Retrieval Augment Generation (RAG) is popular to address this issue, few studies implemented and evaluated RAG in downstream domain-specific applications. We developed a RAG pipeline with ~70,000 ophthalmology-specific documents that retrieve relevant documents to augment LLMs during inference time. In a case study on long-form consumer health questions, we systematically evaluated the responses - including over 500 references - of LLMs with and without RAG on 100 questions with 10 healthcare professionals. The evaluation focuses on factuality of evidence, selection and ranking of evidence, attribution of evidence, and answer accuracy and completeness. LLMs without RAG provided 252 references in total. Of which, 45.3% hallucinated, 34.1% consisted of minor errors, and 20.6% were correct. In contrast, LLMs with RAG significantly improved accuracy (54.5% being correct) and reduced error rates (18.8% with minor hallucinations and 26.7% with errors). 62.5% of the top 10 documents retrieved by RAG were selected as the top references in the LLM response, with an average ranking of 4.9. The use of RAG also improved evidence attribution (increasing from 1.85 to 2.49 on a 5-point scale, P<0.001), albeit with slight decreases in accuracy (from 3.52 to 3.23, P=0.03) and completeness (from 3.47 to 3.27, P=0.17). The results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibited hallucinated and erroneous evidence in the responses, raising concerns for downstream applications in the medical domain. RAG substantially reduced the proportion of such evidence but encountered challenges. In contrast to existing studies, the results highlight that (1) LLMs may not select top-ranked documents by RAG, which results in hallucinated evidence remaining, (2) LLMs may miss top-ranked documents by RAG, and (3) irrelevant documents by RAG downgrade response accuracy and completeness, especially in challenging tasks such as long-form question answering. In conclusion, in long-form medical question answering, the RAG approach demonstrated improved effectiveness over non-RAG approach. Nevertheless, there are still challenges in evidence retrieval, selection, and attribution, highlighting the need for further development in domain-specific LLM and RAG techniques.

Identifiers

PMID41031070
PMCPMC12478434

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.