ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of large language models and retrieval-augmented generation for clinical reasoning in pediatric myopia: a 50-case real-world study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Evaluating large language models in specialized myopia knowledge and clinical reasoning.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the clinical reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems in pediatric myopia management using a real-world, expert-annotated case set covering diverse refractive, pathological, and high-risk scenarios. Six models were tested: baseline LLMs (GPT Base, Gemini Base, Grok Base) and their RAG variants (GPT-RAG, Gemini-RAG, Grok-RAG). RAG was augmented with 41 authoritative guidelines, including IMI white papers and the LAMP study. Performance was evaluated through automated scoring by Claude 4 Opus and blinded adjudication by three senior ophthalmologists, focusing on Accuracy, Utility, and Safety. RAG-enhanced models significantly outperformed baseline models across all metrics. Notably, GPT-RAG achieved the highest weighted automated score (7.46), surpassing GPT Base (7.37). Human adjudication revealed that RAG models achieved 90-94% consensus alignment compared to 68-82% for baselines. Crucially, the probability of high-risk recommendations-those capable of causing severe vision loss-was eliminated (0%) in all RAG models, whereas baseline models exhibited high-risk error rates of 6-14%. LLM + RAG integration boosts reliability and safety in pediatric myopia care, particularly for high-risk decisions. RAG's domain knowledge incorporation advances AI clinical tools in ophthalmology, though ophthalmologist-in-the-loop refinement is essential pre-deployment.
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.