Ron A. Adelman

Aidan Gilson, Xuguang Ai, Thilaka Arunachalam et al.

Despite the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine, they may generate responses lacking supporting evidence or based on hallucinated evidence. While Retrieval Augment Generation (RAG) is popular to address this issue, few studies implemented and evaluated RAG in downstream domain-specific applications. We developed a RAG pipeline with 70,000 ophthalmology-specific documents that retrieve relevant documents to augment LLMs during inference time. In a case study on long-form consumer health questions, we systematically evaluated the responses including over 500 references of LLMs with and without RAG on 100 questions with 10 healthcare professionals. The evaluation focuses on factuality of evidence, selection and ranking of evidence, attribution of evidence, and answer accuracy and completeness. LLMs without RAG provided 252 references in total. Of which, 45.3% hallucinated, 34.1% consisted of minor errors, and 20.6% were correct. In contrast, LLMs with RAG significantly improved accuracy (54.5% being correct) and reduced error rates (18.8% with minor hallucinations and 26.7% with errors). 62.5% of the top 10 documents retrieved by RAG were selected as the top references in the LLM response, with an average ranking of 4.9. The use of RAG also improved evidence attribution (increasing from 1.85 to 2.49 on a 5-point scale, P<0.001), albeit with slight decreases in accuracy (from 3.52 to 3.23, P=0.03) and completeness (from 3.47 to 3.27, P=0.17). The results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibited hallucinated and erroneous evidence in the responses, raising concerns for downstream applications in the medical domain. RAG substantially reduced the proportion of such evidence but encountered challenges.

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.

Sahana Srinivasan, Xuguang Ai, Minjie Zou et al.

Question: What is the performance and reasoning ability of OpenAI o1 compared to other large language models in addressing ophthalmology-specific questions? Findings: This study evaluated OpenAI o1 and five LLMs using 6,990 ophthalmological questions from MedMCQA. O1 achieved the highest accuracy (0.88) and macro-F1 score but ranked third in reasoning capabilities based on text-generation metrics. Across subtopics, o1 ranked first in ``Lens'' and ``Glaucoma'' but second to GPT-4o in ``Corneal and External Diseases'', ``Vitreous and Retina'' and ``Oculoplastic and Orbital Diseases''. Subgroup analyses showed o1 performed better on queries with longer ground truth explanations. Meaning: O1's reasoning enhancements may not fully extend to ophthalmology, underscoring the need for domain-specific refinements to optimize performance in specialized fields like ophthalmology.