Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41444718›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Medical QA dialogue datasets in RAG systems performance evaluation and ChatGPT optimization.

Muretijiang Muhetaer, Ailimulati Yusupu, Wang Yifan, Munire Mutalipu, Fan Hao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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. 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

5 authors.

Muretijiang MuhetaerSchool of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China. 2019281040215@whu.edu.cn.
Ailimulati YusupuSchool of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China.
Wang YifanSchool of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China.
Munire MutalipuXinjiang Institute of Education, Urumqi, 830046, China.
Fan HaoSchool of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, China. hfan@whu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluates the effectiveness of Chinese doctor-patient dialogues as retrieval sources for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in clinical question answering. Using ChatGPT-3.5 as a baseline and extending to GPT-4o and GPT-5, we compare multiple retrieval pipelines, including dense retrieval, Cross-Encoder reranking, Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF), and Cascade RRF→Rerank. Experimental results show that dialogue-based retrieval significantly improves generation quality relative to direct prompting (e.g., ROUGE-1-f: +12.6%, BERTScore_F1: +1.5%, p < 0.05). Among retrieval strategies, Rerank-only provides the best accuracy-latency balance, while the cascade pipeline introduces noise and yields no additional benefit. Under identical retrieval settings, GPT-4o achieves stronger automatic metrics and 4-5× lower latency, whereas GPT-5 receives slightly higher human preference scores (+ 0.08, p < 0.001), indicating a trade-off between efficiency and perceived coherence. Expert evaluation further confirms improvements in readability, accuracy, and authenticity (all p < 0.001). These findings highlight that data representation and metadata structure have a greater impact on RAG performance than retrieval algorithm complexity, offering practical guidance for reliable medical QA deployment.

Indexed as

Information Storage and RetrievalPhysician-Patient RelationsAlgorithmsGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansClinical QAEvaluationLarge language modelsMedical dialogueRetrieval-Augmented generation

Identifiers

PMID41444718
PMCPMC12739145

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.