Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Enhancing Large Language Models with Domain-specific Retrieval Augment Generation: A Case Study on Long-form Consumer Health Question Answering in Ophthalmology

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.13902 v1 pith:PDMLXBCU submitted 2024-09-20 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords evidencellmsaccuracyaugmentdocumentshallucinatedreferencesresponses
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. HealthBranches: Synthesizing Clinically-Grounded Question Answering Datasets via Decision Pathways

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A semi-automated pipeline turns clinical decision trees into 4,063 medical Q&A pairs with explicit reasoning paths, and early LLM benchmarks show models improve when given those paths.

  2. Never Come Up Empty: Adaptive HyDE Retrieval for Improving LLM Developer Support

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A HyDE retrieval pipeline with full-answer context and adaptive similarity thresholding improves LLM answers to Stack Overflow questions over zero-shot prompting for three of four open-source models.

Pith tools