ArticleJMIR AI2026
Evaluation of a Retrieval-Augmented Generation Chatbot for Antimicrobial Resistance Research: Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models.
Article in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a critical global health threat, undermining the efficacy of antibiotics and complicating clinical decision-making. Although scientific literature on AMR is extensive, retrieving and synthesizing relevant evidence remains time-consuming for clinicians and researchers. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer opportunities to enhance access to domain-specific knowledge. However, the diversity of available models, ranging from open-source to commercial, necessitates a systematic comparison of their performance, cost, and scalability in real-world biomedical applications. Objective: This study aims to describe the development of a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) chatbot for AMR literature analysis and compare multiple commercial and open-source LLMs in terms of accuracy, faithfulness, response time, and cost-efficiency. Methods: A corpus of 164 peer-reviewed AMR-related articles was compiled from Google Scholar and embedded into a ChromaDB vector database using OpenAI's text-embedding-ada-002. The RAG chatbot was implemented to operate with 5 LLM backbones: GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and LLaMA 4 Maverick. For each model, a temperature ablation study was performed to determine optimal performance. Evaluation metrics included correctness (pass rate and score), faithfulness, relevancy, computational cost, and latency, using a synthetic ground truth dataset generated with GPT-4. Results: All models generated scientifically grounded responses when integrated into the RAG framework. GPT-4 achieved the highest correctness score (94.7%) but incurred the highest cost, while GPT-4o delivered nearly identical accuracy at a 9-fold lower cost and the fastest response time (3.88 s). LLaMA 4 Maverick and GPT-4o-mini offered lower accuracy but substantially reduced operational costs. Claude 3.7 Sonnet showed competitive accuracy, but the least favorable cost-performance ratio. Qualitative analysis revealed differences in response style, detail, and structure among models. Conclusions: A RAG-based chatbot can effectively support AMR research by delivering accurate, context-grounded, and scalable access to scientific literature. The comparative evaluation highlights trade-offs between performance, cost, and speed, guiding the selection of LLM architectures for clinical and research settings. Future work will focus on integrating language-specific embeddings and specialized domain agents to further enhance accuracy, adaptability, and clinical use.
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.