ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Decoding high-order clinical correlations: a knowledge-driven large language model framework for specialized medical decision-making.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Specialized thoracic-surgery questions require the integration of multi-factor clinical relationships within text, yet general-purpose large language models (LLMs) may underperform on such exam-style benchmarks. Methods: We constructed a DK-LLM agent by embedding curated medical textbook knowledge into a LangChain-based framework to support domain-specific reasoning. The model was tested on a 56-item thoracic-surgery examination question set in a restricted text-only setting without internet browsing or external tools and was compared with generic LLM baselines, three thoracic surgeons, and three non-expert engineers. Examination score and error patterns were assessed. Results: The knowledge-augmented DK-LLM configuration showed an 11.8-point examination-score advantage over the version without the local knowledge base. Commercial LLM-based agents outperformed the open-source baselines and non-expert participants on this question set, whereas experienced thoracic surgeons achieved the highest scores overall; in the ablation analysis, removing the local knowledge base reduced the examination score by 11.8 percentage points. Conclusion: Embedding domain-specific knowledge into LLMs may improve performance on specialized exam-style thoracic-surgery questions on this text-only benchmark. However, the present 56-item evaluation does not establish clinical equivalence, diagnostic accuracy in practice, multimodal competence, or readiness for real-world clinical decision support.
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.