ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2025
Retrieval-augmented generation for interpreting clinical laboratory regulations using large language models.
Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Performance Evaluation of GPT-5, Grok 4, and DeepSeek R1 in Interpreting Complete Blood Count Reports for Hematologic Diseases: Retrospective Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Medicaid Managed Care Procurement Reveals Systematic Overemphasis of Technology and Equity Performance Claims Across 32 States.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on general knowledge tasks, but they have important limitations as standalone tools for question answering in specialized domains where accuracy and consistency are critical. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a strategy in which LLM outputs are grounded in dynamically retrieved source documents, offering advantages in accuracy, explainability, and maintainability. We developed and evaluated a custom RAG system called Raven, designed to answer laboratory regulatory questions using the part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pertaining to laboratory (42 CFR Part 493) as an authoritative source. Raven employed a vector search pipeline and a LLM to generate grounded responses via a chatbot-style interface. The system was tested using 103 synthetic laboratory regulatory questions, 88 of which were explicitly addressed in the CFR. Compared to answers generated manually by a board-certified pathologist, Raven's responses were judged to be totally complete and correct in 92.0% of those 88 cases, with little irrelevant content and a low potential for regulatory or medical error. Performance declined significantly on questions not addressed in the CFR, confirming the system's grounding in the source documents. Most suboptimal responses were attributable to faulty source document retrieval rather than model hallucination or misinterpretation. These findings demonstrate that a basic RAG system can produce useful, accurate, and verifiable answers to complex regulatory questions. With appropriate safeguards and with thoughtful integration into user workflows, tools like Raven may serve as valuable decision-support systems in laboratory medicine and other knowledge-intensive healthcare domains.
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.