MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416754409 · doi:10.1101/2025.11.25.25341010

Development and validation of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) and GraphRAG for complex clinical cases

2025· preprint· W4416754409 on OpenAlexaff
Berkan Sesen, Joshua Au Yeung, Elham Asgari

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineNiceCorrectnessBaseline (sea)GraphScope (computer science)Clinical trialPipeline (software)Health informatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is a progressive condition requiring evidence-based management, but adherence to complex guidelines remains challenging. Large Language Models (LLMs) could support clinical decision-making, yet their unreliability limits direct use. This study aimed to evaluate whether Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), particularly a knowledge graph-enhanced pipeline (GraphRAG), improves guideline-based clinical decision support (CDS) in CKD management. Methods and Analysis We compared three approaches: a baseline LLM (GPT-4o), a vector-indexed RAG pipeline, and a GraphRAG pipeline. Each model answered nine clinically relevant questions for a synthetic cohort of 70 CKD patients. Outputs were assessed for clinical correctness, patient-specificity, and clarity, using both clinician-led evaluations and an LLM-as-Judge framework. Results RAG-based methods outperformed the baseline LLM in clinical correctness and guideline adherence. GraphRAG achieved the highest patient-specificity by leveraging multi-hop relationships across a knowledge graph derived from NICE CKD guidelines, particularly for tasks involving thresholds, algorithmic decisions, or open-ended management. However, GraphRAG scored lower in clarity, as its graph walks often returned long guideline excerpts that obscured key recommendations. All RAG systems were limited by the scope of the indexed guideline and performed poorly when essential information was missing. Conclusions RAG and GraphRAG provide a scalable, auditable foundation for guideline-aligned CDS in CKD, with GraphRAG showing particular strengths in tailoring advice to patient data. Nonetheless, trade-offs remain between specificity and clarity, and effective deployment will require robust content management, transparent validation pipelines, and integration within established clinical governance frameworks. Key points - LLMs have comprehensive medical knowledge but require access to up-to-date, evidence-based, and locally relevant guidelines to be effective in CDS. - Hallucinations (the generation of inaccurate or misleading information) remain a major limitation for LLMs in healthcare. - Traditional information retrieval methods face several challenges in providing accurate, context-specific evidence. - Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and graph-based RAG approaches have emerged as promising solutions to overcome these limitations. - Renal medicine provides an ideal test domain to evaluate these models, given its complexity and reliance on nuanced, multidisciplinary decision-making. - Studying LLM performance in kidney health can yield valuable insights into how such models can safely and effectively support complex clinical decision-making.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207