Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42527447›Full record

Reviewnpj health systems2025

Retrieval-augmented generation for generative artificial intelligence in health care.

Rui Yang, Yilin Ning, Emilia Keppo, Mingxuan Liu, Chuan Hong, Danielle S Bitterman, Jasmine Chiat Ling Ong, Daniel Shu Wei Ting, Nan Liu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in npj health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Rui YangCenter for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Yilin NingCenter for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Emilia KeppoFaculty of Arts and Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mingxuan LiuCenter for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Chuan HongDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Danielle S BittermanArtificial Intelligence in Medicine Program, Mass General Brigham, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jasmine Chiat Ling OngDivision of Pharmacy, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Daniel Shu Wei TingCenter for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Nan LiuCenter for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. liu.nan@duke-nus.edu.sg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence has brought disruptive innovations in health care but faces certain challenges. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enables models to generate more reliable content by leveraging the retrieval of external knowledge. In this perspective, we analyze the possible contributions that RAG could bring to health care in equity, reliability, and personalization. Additionally, we discuss the current limitations and challenges of implementing RAG in medical scenarios.

Identifiers

PMID42527447
PMCPMC13354210

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.