ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2026
MedHopper: an agentic RAG-LLM system for multi-hop biomedical QA.
Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This multi-hop biomedical QA system combines dense retrieval with a bounded agentic workflow for the MedHopQA (BioCreative IX) task, which requires short, entity-centric answers from a Wikipedia-derived corpus evaluated via exact match with normalization. Our approach replaces prior prompt decomposition with a controlled state machine that routes questions into four strategies (direct, definition, intersection, and multi-hop). The pipeline performs dense retrieval with cross-encoder reranking, executes up to three hops of intermediate entity extraction when needed, and applies answer validation with a bounded query-repair loop. On the MedHopQA test set (N = 1000), MedHopper achieves 0.55 Exact Match (MedHopQA evaluation metric) under official CodaBench evaluation. Ablation confirms capped multi-hop execution, reranking, and query repair as primary contributors; validation modules provide smaller consistent gains. Analysis reveals persistent challenges under exact-match scoring, including answer-type inconsistency (chromosome vs cytoband; yes/no vs symptom) and surface variation across plausible lexicalizations. All experiments were run on a single consumer GPU (RTX 5080) with no API dependencies, producing deterministic outputs at zero marginal cost per query.
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.