Maxwell B. Singer

Hyunjae Kim, Jiwoong Sohn, Aidan Gilson et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are transforming the landscape of medicine, yet two fundamental challenges persist: keeping up with rapidly evolving medical knowledge and providing verifiable, evidence-grounded reasoning. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has been widely adopted to address these limitations by supplementing model outputs with retrieved evidence. However, whether RAG reliably achieves these goals remains unclear. Here, we present the most comprehensive expert evaluation of RAG in medicine to date. Eighteen medical experts contributed a total of 80,502 annotations, assessing 800 model outputs generated by GPT-4o and Llama-3.1-8B across 200 real-world patient and USMLE-style queries. We systematically decomposed the RAG pipeline into three components: (i) evidence retrieval (relevance of retrieved passages), (ii) evidence selection (accuracy of evidence usage), and (iii) response generation (factuality and completeness of outputs). Contrary to expectation, standard RAG often degraded performance: only 22% of top-16 passages were relevant, evidence selection remained weak (precision 41-43%, recall 27-49%), and factuality and completeness dropped by up to 6% and 5%, respectively, compared with non-RAG variants. Retrieval and evidence selection remain key failure points for the model, contributing to the overall performance drop. We further show that simple yet effective strategies, including evidence filtering and query reformulation, substantially mitigate these issues, improving performance on MedMCQA and MedXpertQA by up to 12% and 8.2%, respectively. These findings call for re-examining RAG's role in medicine and highlight the importance of stage-aware evaluation and deliberate system design for reliable medical LLM applications.

Qingyu Chen, Yan Hu, Xueqing Peng et al.

The rapid growth of biomedical literature poses challenges for manual knowledge curation and synthesis. Biomedical Natural Language Processing (BioNLP) automates the process. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in general domains, their effectiveness in BioNLP tasks remains unclear due to limited benchmarks and practical guidelines. We perform a systematic evaluation of four LLMs, GPT and LLaMA representatives on 12 BioNLP benchmarks across six applications. We compare their zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning performance with traditional fine-tuning of BERT or BART models. We examine inconsistencies, missing information, hallucinations, and perform cost analysis. Here we show that traditional fine-tuning outperforms zero or few shot LLMs in most tasks. However, closed-source LLMs like GPT-4 excel in reasoning-related tasks such as medical question answering. Open source LLMs still require fine-tuning to close performance gaps. We find issues like missing information and hallucinations in LLM outputs. These results offer practical insights for applying LLMs in BioNLP.