Evaluating Adherence to Canadian Radiology Guidelines for Incidental Hepatobiliary Findings Using RAG-Enabled LLMs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to support clinical decision-making but often lack training on the latest clinical guidelines. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) may enhance guideline adherence by dynamically integrating external information. This study evaluates the performance of two LLMs, GPT-4o and o1-mini, with and without RAG, in adhering to Canadian radiology guidelines for incidental hepatobiliary findings. Methods: A customized RAG architecture was developed to integrate guideline-based recommendations into LLM prompts. Clinical cases were curated and used to prompt models with and without RAG. Primary analyses assessed the rate of guideline adherence with comparisons made between LLMs with and without RAG. Secondary analyses evaluated reading ease, grade level, and response times for generated outputs. Results: A total of 319 clinical cases were evaluated. Adherence rates were 81.7% for GPT-4o without RAG, 97.2% for GPT-4o with RAG, 79.3% for o1-mini without RAG, and 95.1% for o1-mini with RAG. Model performance differed significantly across groups, with RAG-enabled configurations outperforming their non-RAG counterparts ( P < .05). RAG-enabled models demonstrated improved reading ease and lower grade level scores; however, all model outputs remained at advanced comprehension levels. Response times for RAG-enabled models increased slightly due to additional retrieval processing but remained clinically acceptable. Conclusions: RAG-enabled LLMs significantly improved adherence to Canadian radiology guidelines for incidental hepatobiliary findings without compromising readability or response times. This approach holds promise for advancing evidence-based care and warrants further validation across broader clinical settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".