ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Benchmarking large language models for question answering on German clinical practice guidelines.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesClinical practice guidelines are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, yet their implementation in routine care remains inconsistent. Large language models (LLMs), particularly with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), have shown strong performance in medical question answering, but their ability to use knowledge from German-language guidelines has not been systematically evaluated due to a lack of a dedicated benchmark. We therefore developed such a benchmark and evaluated guideline-based question answering with different LLMs and retriever configurations.
methodsWe developed cpgQA-DE, an expert-validated benchmark dataset of 200 multiple-choice questions derived from 10 current German clinical practice guidelines across five specialties. All questions were reviewed for correctness, relevance and complexity. The dataset includes case-based and knowledge-based questions with metadata on guideline source, specialty, relevance and difficulty. We evaluated LLM performance using a RAG-based pipeline built on a corpus of German guidelines, comparing multiple model-retriever combinations.
resultsRAG integration substantially improved accuracy across all tested models and for most retrievers. The best-performing configuration, GPT-5 combined with the multilingual-e5-large retriever, achieved an accuracy of 95%. Notably, the open-weight model gpt-oss-120b reached 90% accuracy when used with RAG.
conclusionscpgQA-DE enables systematic and reproducible offline evaluation of guideline-aware question answering systems in the German healthcare context. The observed performance gains with RAG support the use of LLMs augmented with quality-assured external knowledge. Such systems may help bridge the evidence-practice gap by providing guideline-based recommendations at the point of care, while strong performance of open-weight models suggests potential for on-premises deployment in privacy-sensitive clinical environments.
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.