AlzheimerRAG: Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Clinical Use Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advancements in generative AI have fostered the development of highly adept Large Language Models (LLMs) that integrate diverse data types to empower decision-making. Among these, multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) applications are promising because they combine the strengths of information retrieval and generative models, enhancing their utility across various domains, including clinical use cases. This paper introduces AlzheimerRAG, a multimodal RAG application for clinical use cases, primarily focusing on Alzheimer’s disease case studies from PubMed articles. This application incorporates cross-modal attention fusion techniques to integrate textual and visual data processing by efficiently indexing and accessing vast amounts of biomedical literature. Our experimental results, compared to benchmarks such as BioASQ and PubMedQA, yield improved performance in the retrieval and synthesis of domain-specific information. We also present a case study using our multimodal RAG in various Alzheimer’s clinical scenarios. We infer that AlzheimerRAG can generate responses with accuracy non-inferior to humans and with low rates of hallucination.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".