ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
EyeRAG: graph retrieval-augmented generation for safe and accurate clinical dialogue in ophthalmology.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models promise to transform ophthalmic clinical communication but face challenges from factual inaccuracies (hallucinations) and limited domain knowledge. This study introduces EyeRAG, a guideline-grounded GraphRAG system for ophthalmic dialogue that integrates OphthaKG, a domain-specific knowledge graph, constructed exclusively from clinical guidelines. We evaluated EyeRAG across 120 clinical scenarios (40 each for glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, and cataract), six LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Grok 4, Llama 3.3 70B, Claude Sonnet 4, DeepSeek-V2.5), and four RAG configurations, assessing clinical accuracy and patient-centered relevance. Validated by LLM-as-a-judge and board-certified ophthalmologists on internal/external datasets, EyeRAG outperformed Vanilla LLMs and standard RAG. LLM evaluations ranked EyeRAG highest (mean 1.61 ± 1.04 internal/1.72 ± 1.18 external). Experts assigned a mean rank of 1.0, with hallucinations falling to 3.3% (vs. 30% baseline). EyeRAG demonstrates the potential for safe, explainable, and clinically grounded language models to be developed as clinician-supervised aids designed specifically to bridge the communication gap between clinicians and patients. It serves as a tool for patient interpretation rather than clinical decision-making, assisting in patient counselling and tele-ophthalmology by translating complex findings into accessible dialog under professional oversight.
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.