Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42579838›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2026

Evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models on Anesthesiology Board-Style Questions: Benchmark Study.

Nguyen Quang Phuong, Shanq-Jang Ruan, Pei-Fu Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Nguyen Quang PhuongDepartment of Electronic and Computer Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0009-0002-1305-2216
Shanq-Jang RuanDepartment of Electronic and Computer Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-1075-8512
Pei-Fu ChenDepartment of Anesthesia, University of Iowa, 200 Hawkins Drive, 6 JCP, Iowa City, IA, 52242, United States, 1 319-356-2502.ORCID 0000-0002-0192-5377

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Open-source, mid-scale large language models (LLMs) have emerged as scalable, privacy-preserving alternatives to ultra-large foundation models (eg, GPT-4) in health care systems. Techniques such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enable sub-100-billion-parameter models to address highly specialized medical domains such as anesthesiology. However, studies evaluating RAG architectures on complex medical examinations remain scarce, highlighting the need for rigorous benchmarking to bridge the gap between raw parametric knowledge and clinically relevant application. Objective: This study aimed to systematically evaluate RAG pipelines for answering anesthesiology board-style questions, quantify the effects of key design choices including hyperparameter settings, embedding models, source complexity, and chunking strategies, and compare the performance of reasoning-oriented models with that of conventional LLMs. Methods: We conducted large-scale benchmarking using American Board of Anesthesiology-style multiple-choice questions to compare multiple RAG-enabled configurations with matched standalone LLM baselines. Configurations were first optimized on a 46-item diagnostic set and then validated on a 350-item corpus. Additional experiments on three 100-question subsets derived from the 350-item corpus were used to assess the effects of source selection, source complexity, information density, and chunking strategy on answer accuracy. Models including Llama-3-8B-Instruct, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct, Qwen2.5-7B and Qwen2.5-72B, and Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-32B reasoning models were evaluated under this framework. Self-reflective RAG (self-RAG) with adaptive retrieval techniques was also implemented and evaluated. Cochran Q and McNemar tests were used to assess performance differences across configurations and model pairs. Results: The RAG framework increased the number of correct answers. System stability peaked under highly deterministic sampling configurations (temperature=0.1, top-p [nucleus sampling]=0.1). High-capacity general-text embeddings and applying context-preserving semantic chunking further improved accuracy. Standard RAG provided only modest gains over nonaugmented baselines, improving accuracy from 50.29% to 56.57%, and self-RAG yielded similarly limited gains of up to 4.85 percentage points. Overall, the Qwen family outperformed the Llama series. The 32-billion-parameter reasoning model Qwen-3-32B achieved an 89% correct ratio under complex distractor-heavy retrieval conditions and up to 96% with direct context, significantly outperforming the much larger 72-billion-parameter conventional model Qwen-2.5-72B-Instruct (84%). Smaller reasoning models also showed greater robustness to noise or suboptimal retrieved documents than larger conventional LLMs. Within the Llama family, increasing parameter size to 70 billion did not produce proportional performance gains on this benchmark. Conclusions: RAG-based LLM systems improved performance on anesthesiology board-style questions, but gains depended strongly on retrieval design. Careful optimization of retrieval settings, embeddings, and chunking strategies improved robustness and answer accuracy. Reasoning-oriented models demonstrated that multistep reasoning can, in some settings, compensate for larger parameter scale. These findings provide a methodological foundation for developing locally deployable LLM systems for anesthesiology education within structured examination settings.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologyBenchmarkingLarge Language ModelsHumansSpecialty Boardsanesthesiology board examinationembedding modellarge language modelreasoning modelretrieval-augmented generation

Identifiers

PMID42579838
PMCPMC13460678

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.