Tianshi Liu

Qing Wang, Tianshi Liu, Minghao Zhou et al.

Systematic characterization of drug-disease relationships is essential for drug discovery and repurposing, yet is hindered by the heterogeneity and rapid growth of biomedical literature. Existing datasets rely on labor-intensive curation and are often incomplete, while LLM-only approaches suffer from hallucination and weak evidence grounding. We introduce UniD$^3$, a unified framework that integrates Large Language Models with Knowledge Graph-enhanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (KG-RAG) to extract, organize, and validate drug-disease knowledge across Drug-Disease Matching (DDM), Drug Effectiveness Assessment (DEA), and Drug-Target Analysis (DTA). UniD$^3$ processes 157,849 PubMed articles with Llama 3.3-70B and constructs knowledge graphs via a dual-stage strategy combining paper-level extraction with KG-level consolidation centered on drug and disease entities. These graphs support KG-RAG-based generation of structured datasets, evaluated through external benchmarks, fuzzy matching with curated resources, and clinician review. UniD$^3$ produces six knowledge graphs and large-scale datasets, including 28,915 DDM, 15,042 DEA, and over 4,000 DTA QA pairs. External validation shows strong performance (F1: 0.85-0.87 for DDM/DEA; 0.82 for DTA), with clinician review confirming high reliability (AUROC = 0.90). KG-RAG-augmented models outperform standalone LLMs, and the UniD$^3$ chatbot enables interpretable, citation-supported exploration of drug-disease relationships. UniD$^3$ provides a scalable, extensible framework for transforming unstructured biomedical literature into high-quality, structured drug-disease knowledge, supporting AI-driven discovery, repurposing, and precision medicine.

Philippe E. Spiess, Md Muntasir Zitu, Alison Walker et al.

Background: More than 80% of U.S. cancer care is delivered in community settings, where survival remains worse than at academic centers. Clinicians must integrate genomics, staging, radiology, pathology, and changing guidelines, creating cognitive burden. We evaluated OncoBrain, an AI clinical reasoning platform for oncology treatment-plan generation, as an early step toward OGI. Methods: OncoBrain combines general-purpose LLMs with a cancer-specific graph retrieval-augmented generation layer, a gold-standard treatment-plan corpus as long-term memory, and a model-agnostic safety layer (CHECK) for hallucination detection and suppression. We evaluated clinician-enriched case summaries across gynecologic, genitourinary, neuro-oncology, gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary, and hematologic malignancies. Three clinician groups completed structured evaluations of 173 cases using a common 16-item instrument: subspecialist oncologists reviewed 50 cases, physician reviewers 78, and advanced practice providers 45. Results: Ratings were highest for scientific accuracy, evidence support, and safety, with lower but favorable scores for workflow integration and time savings. On a 5-point scale, mean alignment with evidence and guidelines was 4.60, 4.56, and 4.70 across subspecialists, physician reviewers, and advanced practice providers. Mean scores for absence of safety or misinformation concerns were 4.80, 4.40, and 4.60. Workflow integration averaged 4.50, 3.94, and 4.00; perceived time savings averaged 5.00, 3.89, and 3.60. Conclusions: In this multi-specialty vignette-based evaluation, OncoBrain generated oncology treatment plans judged guideline-concordant, clinically acceptable, and easy to supervise. These findings support the potential of a carefully engineered AI reasoning platform to assist oncology treatment planning and justify prospective real-world evaluation in community settings.