ArticleBMC nursing2026
Development and comparative evaluation of knowledge graph-enhanced large language models for domain-specific question answering in nursing.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn busy clinical settings, timely access to comprehensive and actionable guideline recommendations can be constrained, motivating interest in large language models (LLMs) as adjunct tools for scalable evidence access and education. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of LLMs in domain-specific question-answering tasks within the nursing field and assess the effectiveness of GraphRAG technology in optimizing LLMs.
methodsA knowledge graph was constructed from high-quality clinical practice guidelines for pressure injury management and integrated with two base models—Qwen-turbo-0715 and DeepSeek-V3.1—to develop optimized versions (Qwen-turbo-0715-GraphRAG and DeepSeek-V3.1-GraphRAG). Model performance was compared between 10 non-specialist nurses, 10 specialist nurses, and the LLMs using a self-developed 25-item questionnaire designed with expert input to assess knowledge of pressure injury management. Group differences were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis H test with Bonferroni correction, followed by post hoc pairwise analysis. Average response times were also recorded for each model.
resultsSignificant differences were observed among non-specialist nurses, specialist nurses, and LLMs (H = 17.662, P-value < 0.001). On this structured, guideline-derived benchmark under the study conditions, the LLM groups obtained higher scores than the nurse groups. The Qwen-turbo-0715-GraphRAG achieved the highest mean score (98.4), followed by DeepSeek-V3.1-GraphRAG (87.2), Qwen-turbo-0715 (86.4), ChatGPT-5 (82.4), and DeepSeek-V3.1 (77.6). GraphRAG optimization was associated with higher benchmark scores, but at the cost of longer response times.
conclusionsOverall, knowledge graph-enhanced LLMs showed more guideline-aligned and source-grounded outputs on this benchmark. However, these improvements were observed within a standardized, guideline-based assessment framework and may not capture the full complexity of clinical expertise. The findings support further evaluation of knowledge graph–enhanced LLMs in larger, more practice-oriented nursing settings and highlight the importance of considering the relative strengths of different base models before clinical application.
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.