Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41259800›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Performance of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Large Language Models in Guideline-Concordant Prostate-Specific Antigen Testing: Comparative Study With Junior Clinicians.

Joshua Yi Min Tung, Quan Le, Jinxuan Yao, Yifei Huang, Daniel Yan Zheng Lim, Gerald Gui Ren Sng, Rachel Shu En Lau, Yu Guang Tan, Kenneth Chen, Kae Jack Tay and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
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 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

14 authors.

Joshua Yi Min TungData Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4991-9790
Quan LeData Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-3306-3000
Jinxuan YaoData Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-7499-9134
Yifei HuangData Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-8907-7198
Daniel Yan Zheng LimData Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9715-6970
Gerald Gui Ren SngData Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8795-7491
Rachel Shu En LauDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Block 4 Level 1, 16 College Road, Singapore, 169854, Singapore, 65 62223322.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4326-0465
Yu Guang TanDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Block 4 Level 1, 16 College Road, Singapore, 169854, Singapore, 65 62223322.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8166-0582
Kenneth ChenDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Block 4 Level 1, 16 College Road, Singapore, 169854, Singapore, 65 62223322.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3844-7567
Kae Jack TayDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Block 4 Level 1, 16 College Road, Singapore, 169854, Singapore, 65 62223322.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0365-1899
Jen Hong TanData Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7785-2987
John Shyi Peng YuenDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Block 4 Level 1, 16 College Road, Singapore, 169854, Singapore, 65 62223322.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6367-2563
Christopher Wai Sam ChengDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Block 4 Level 1, 16 College Road, Singapore, 169854, Singapore, 65 62223322.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5274-3004
Henry Sun Sien HoDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Block 4 Level 1, 16 College Road, Singapore, 169854, Singapore, 65 62223322.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-9072-9742

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains the cornerstone of early prostate cancer detection. Society guidelines for prostate cancer screening via PSA testing serve to standardize patient care and are often used by trainees, junior staff, or generalist medical practitioners to guide medical decision-making. However, adherence to guidelines is a time-consuming and challenging task, and rates of inappropriate PSA testing are high. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a method to enhance the reliability of large language models (LLMs) by grounding responses in trusted external sources. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate a RAG-enhanced LLM system, grounded in current European Association of Urology and American Urological Association guidelines, to assess its effectiveness in providing guideline-concordant PSA screening recommendations compared to junior clinicians. Methods: A series of 44 fictional outpatient case scenarios was developed to represent a broad spectrum of clinical presentations. A RAG pipeline was developed, comprising a life expectancy estimation module based on the Charlson Comorbidity Index, followed by LLM-generated recommendations constrained to retrieved excerpts from the European Association of Urology and American Urological Association guidelines. Five junior clinicians were tasked to provide PSA testing recommendations for the same scenarios in closed-book and open-book formats. Answers were compared for accuracy in a binomial fashion. Fleiss κ was computed to assess interrater agreement among clinicians. Results: The RAG-LLM tool provided guideline-concordant recommendations in 95.5% (210/220) of case scenarios, compared to junior clinicians, who were correct in 62.3% (137/220) of scenarios in a closed-book format and 74.1% (163/220) of scenarios in an open-book format. The difference was statistically significant for both closed-book (P<.001) and open-book (P<.001) formats. Interrater agreement among clinicians was fair, with Fleiss κ of 0.294 and 0.321 for closed-book and open-book formats, respectively. Conclusions: Use of RAG techniques allows LLMs to integrate complex guidelines into day-to-day medical decision-making. RAG-LLM tools in urology have the capability to enhance clinical decision-making by providing guideline-concordant recommendations for PSA testing, potentially improving the consistency of health care delivery, reducing cognitive load on clinicians, and reducing unnecessary investigations and costs. While this study used synthetic cases in a controlled simulation environment, it establishes a foundation for future validation in real-world clinical settings.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsHumansLarge Language ModelsMalePractice Guidelines as TopicProstate-Specific AntigenAIartificial intelligenceguideline concordancejunior clinicianlarge language modelLLM

Identifiers

PMID41259800
PMCPMC12629621

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.