Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

KG4Diagnosis: A Hierarchical Multi-Agent LLM Framework with Knowledge Graph Enhancement for Medical Diagnosis

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read KG4Diagnosis pairs a general-practitioner agent with specialist agents and a medical knowledge graph to diagnose 362 common diseases.

desk verdict A sound design blueprint for combining hierarchical agents with a medical knowledge graph, but with no evaluation and a formal model that never actually uses the graph; the hallucination claims are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16833 v4 pith:OTVDFKQ2 submitted 2024-12-22 cs.AI cs.LG

Kaiwen Zuo , Yirui Jiang , Fan Mo , Pietro Lio This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords medicaldiagnosislargelanguagemodelsknowledgegraphconstructionhierarchicalmulti-agentsystemshallucinationmitigationclinicaldecisionsupportgeneralpractitionertriagespecialistreferral
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

KG4Diagnosis is a proposed architecture, not a tested system. It builds a medical knowledge graph automatically from unstructured medical text, then routes a patient query first through a general-practitioner agent, which either diagnoses or refers to one of four specialist agents, covering 362 diseases. The paper's central claim is that this two-tier structure plus graph-based constraints prevents the hallucinations that standalone LLMs produce in medical settings. The paper also claims the modular pipeline makes it easy to add new diseases and specialties. A sympathetic reading says the framework is a plausible foundation; the paper itself reports no experimental validation, stating that the benchmark needed to test it is still being developed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-tier hierarchical multi-agent protocol: a general-practitioner agent computes a diagnostic confidence and refers the case if confidence is below the threshold or if the diagnosis belongs to a specialist set, after which specialist agents contribute confidences combined by a weighted sum. The second mechanism is the knowledge graph pipeline, which chunks texts, extracts entities and relations with a biomedical language model, builds the graph, augments it with LLM-derived context, and validates it through human expert review. This validated graph is meant to act as a constraint system that keeps agent reasoning grounded.

What would settle it

Run the same set of patient cases through the full system and through the underlying LLM alone, with the knowledge graph and multi-agent routing removed, and compare accuracy and hallucination counts on the MedQA benchmark; if the stripped version matches or beats the full system, the framework's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that medical diagnosis can be decomposed into a GP triage step and specialist steps, each constrained by a knowledge graph that encodes validated symptom-disease-treatment relationships. It formalizes this with a confidence model in which the GP agent refers the case to specialists whenever its confidence falls below 0.7 or the condition requires specialization, and specialist confidences are combined by a normalized weighted sum. The discovery asserted is that this hierarchy plus knowledge-graph grounding suppresses hallucination and improves accuracy compared with single-agent LLM diagnosis, while saving compute by not invoking specialists for every case. The claim is presented with architecture and illustrative graphs, not with measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The entire benefit rests on the untested premise that adding knowledge-graph constraints and splitting diagnosis across GP and specialist agents makes LLM outputs more accurate and less prone to hallucination than a single LLM; no experiment currently supports this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework works, a new disease can be added by expanding the knowledge graph and adding a specialist agent, without retraining the whole system.
  • If knowledge-graph constraints genuinely suppress hallucination, diagnoses could become traceable to specific validated medical relationships, making AI advice more auditable.
  • The GP-then-specialist split means routine cases would consume computation on only one agent, lowering the cost of high-volume primary-care triage.
  • The explicit referral threshold and weighted-fusion formulas give implementers a concrete protocol that can be tuned per specialty as calibration data arrive.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The decisive test is whether the knowledge graph and multi-agent routing add accuracy over the same LLM used alone; the architecture is only justified if that comparison is run.
  • If graph-as-guardrail succeeds in medicine, the same constraint-layer idea could plausibly extend to other high-stakes LLM domains such as legal or financial advice.
  • The human-guided reasoning stage means graph quality is gated by expert-review effort, so a realistic deployment would need a cost model weighing review time against diagnostic gain.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes KG4Diagnosis, a hierarchical multi-agent LLM framework for medical diagnosis that combines a general practitioner (GP) agent with four specialist consultant agents and an automatically constructed medical knowledge graph said to cover 362 common diseases. The manuscript describes a five-stage knowledge graph construction pipeline (chunking, BioBERT/LLM entity and relation extraction, graph construction, LLM augmentation, and human-guided validation) and formalizes the multi-agent diagnostic process with confidence functions, a referral threshold, and weighted collaborative outputs (Eqs. 1-9). The Discussion claims that the framework prevents hallucination and significantly reduces incorrect diagnoses relative to standalone LLMs, but the paper reports no experiments, baselines, or ablations, and its own evaluation section states that the benchmark is still being developed and MedQA experiments are future work.

Significance. If implemented and rigorously evaluated, the architectural idea of combining a hierarchical multi-agent triage structure with a medical knowledge graph could be valuable for medical AI, and the paper clearly articulates a modular pipeline with plausible components. The strengths of the submission are its clean separation of knowledge graph construction from multi-agent diagnosis and the explicit framing of a GP-agent referral mechanism. However, as submitted, the central claims are unsupported: there is no evidence that the framework improves diagnostic accuracy or reduces hallucination, the formal model does not actually include the knowledge graph, and the claimed validation is contradicted by the paper's own statement that benchmarking is future work. The contribution is therefore prospective rather than demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework for Medical Diagnosis, Eqs. (1)-(9)] The knowledge graph G constructed in Stages 1-5 never appears in the diagnostic formalism. Eqs. (1)-(9) define P_GP(x|q), P_Agent_i(y|q), and P_final(z|q) as functions of the query q alone, with f_GP and f_Agent_i left as unspecified oracles. No retrieval, grounding, or consistency-check operation over G is described, so the Discussion's claim that 'the knowledge graph serving as an effective constraint system significantly reduces incorrect diagnoses' is not only empirically unverified but also architecturally unspecified. As written, the multi-agent system could run identically without any knowledge graph.
  2. [Introduction (contributions) vs. Future Training and Evaluation Work] The third contribution bullet states that 'robust mechanisms to address LLM hallucination challenges . . . [are] validated using comprehensive benchmarks,' but the Future Training and Evaluation Work section states that 'a comprehensive benchmark is currently being developed' and that MedQA experiments are future work. These statements are mutually inconsistent. No dataset, baseline, evaluation metric, or experimental protocol is reported anywhere in the manuscript, so the Conclusion's claims of 'significant advantages in preventing hallucination' and reduced incorrect diagnoses are unsupported by any evidence.
  3. [Advanced Diagnosis with Multi-Agent Collaboration, Eqs. (8)-(9)] Eq. (8) is simply a restatement of the referral rule already given in Eq. (2), and Eq. (9) reduces the weighted combination of Eq. (5) to an unweighted average without justification. The threshold tau=0.7 and the weights w_i are asserted rather than derived or calibrated; there is no analysis, sensitivity study, or ablation to justify these choices. Because P_final is the central output of the framework, this lack of grounding weakens the formal contribution.
  4. [Knowledge Graph Construction Pipeline, Stages 1-5] The claim of encompassing 362 common diseases and the visualizations in Figures 3-5 are not accompanied by quantitative information about the graph: no node or edge counts, no extraction accuracy measures, no statistics on expert validation, and no evaluation of the LLM-augmented extraction against BioBERT. Stage 5's human-guided validation is described as a process to be performed, not as a completed result. Consequently, the paper's central knowledge graph contribution is not verifiable from the manuscript.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page] The affiliation line 'University of Oxford, OX1 2JD 1TN, UK' appears to contain a duplicated or malformed postcode; please correct it to a standard address.
  2. [Related Work, Advancements in Medical LLMs] ESM-1b is described as a medical LLM, but it is a protein language model; this placement is misleading and should be revised or removed.
  3. [System Architecture Overview] The phrase 'Camel-based multi-agent system' names a framework without a citation or description; please provide a reference and clarify how CAMEL is used.
  4. [Methodology] The referral rule appears twice as Eqs. (2)-(3) and again as Eq. (8); consider presenting it once and referencing the earlier definition to avoid redundancy.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract describes 'end-to-end knowledge graph generation,' but Stage 5 involves human-guided expert validation; consider a qualifier such as 'semi-automated' to avoid overstatement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the framework's equations define stipulated confidences and constants, with no fitted prediction or self-citation chain; unsupported KG claims are evidentiary gaps, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameter, no empirical prediction, and no derivation whose output is built into its inputs. The formal diagnostic model (Eqs. 1-9) defines P_GP, P_Agent_i, and P_final as functions f of the query only; the threshold tau=0.7 and the equal weights 1/n in Eq. (9) are stipulated constants, not estimated from data, so no 'prediction' is forced by construction. Self-citations (Zuo et al. 2025; Zuo and Jiang 2024) appear only as contextual references in the Introduction and Related Work and are not load-bearing for the framework's claims. The Discussion's claim that the knowledge graph 'significantly reduces incorrect diagnoses compared to standalone LLM implementations' is unsupported, and the knowledge graph never appears in Eqs. (1)-(9), but that is an evidentiary and architectural gap, not circularity. Similarly, the contributions list says hallucination mechanisms are 'validated using comprehensive benchmarks' while the Future Training and Evaluation Work section says a comprehensive benchmark 'is currently being developed'; this is an internal inconsistency, not a circular reduction. Under the rule that unsubstantiated claims are correctness risks rather than circularity, the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no physical entities; its free parameters are a hand-set threshold and undefined agent weights. The main burden is the collection of untested assumptions about the effectiveness of the KG and multi-agent design.

free parameters (2)
  • Referral confidence threshold tau = 0.7
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (2) and (8); controls when GP defers to specialists. No sensitivity analysis or calibration is reported.
  • Specialist agent weights w_i = unspecified (normalized to sum 1)
    Introduced in Eq. (5) for collaborative diagnosis; no values or learning procedure are given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption BioBERT extracts medical entities and relations accurately enough to build a valid knowledge graph.
    Stage 2 of the KG pipeline relies on BioBERT plus ontologies; no extraction accuracy numbers are reported.
  • domain assumption LLM-augmented extraction and expert validation improve KG quality and diagnostic reliability.
    Stages 4-5 assume that broader LLM extractions and human review expand the graph beneficially; this is not evaluated.
  • ad hoc to paper Diagnostic confidence functions fGP and fAgenti exist and produce well-calibrated probabilities.
    Equations (1)-(9) define PGP, PAgenti, and Pfinal as if such functions are available, but no model, training procedure, or calibration evidence is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Knowledge graph constraints reduce LLM hallucination in diagnosis.
    The hallucination-prevention claim in the Discussion presumes that grounding LLM outputs in the KG will suppress incorrect diagnoses, which is never tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KG4Diagnosis: A Hierarchical Multi-Agent LLM Framework with Knowledge Graph Enhancement for Medical Diagnosis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OTVDFKQ2

@misc{pith2026241216833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KG4Diagnosis: A Hierarchical Multi-Agent LLM Framework with Knowledge Graph Enhancement for Medical Diagnosis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OTVDFKQ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16833}
}
read the original abstract

Integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) in healthcare diagnosis demands systematic frameworks that can handle complex medical scenarios while maintaining specialized expertise. We present KG4Diagnosis, a novel hierarchical multi-agent framework that combines LLMs with automated knowledge graph construction, encompassing 362 common diseases across medical specialties. Our framework mirrors real-world medical systems through a two-tier architecture: a general practitioner (GP) agent for initial assessment and triage, coordinating with specialized agents for in-depth diagnosis in specific domains. The core innovation lies in our end-to-end knowledge graph generation methodology, incorporating: (1) semantic-driven entity and relation extraction optimized for medical terminology, (2) multi-dimensional decision relationship reconstruction from unstructured medical texts, and (3) human-guided reasoning for knowledge expansion. KG4Diagnosis serves as an extensible foundation for specialized medical diagnosis systems, with capabilities to incorporate new diseases and medical knowledge. The framework's modular design enables seamless integration of domain-specific enhancements, making it valuable for developing targeted medical diagnosis systems. We provide architectural guidelines and protocols to facilitate adoption across medical contexts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16833 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of the KG4Diagnosis framework. The system includes the following components: (1) input medical text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of a diagnostic conversation illustrat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example 1 illustrates the complexity of obesity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example 2 illustrates the expertise of the knowl [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A visualization of the KG4Diagnosis full medical knowledge graph. Nodes represent different medical concepts, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. MedHallBench: A New Benchmark for Assessing Hallucination in Medical Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

    The paper proposes MedHallBench and ACHMI for medical hallucination measurement, but provides no dataset or code, and ACHMI is an uncredited replication of CHAIR.

  2. Reasoning LLMs in the Medical Domain: A Literature Survey

    cs.AI 2025-08 reject

    A literature review of reasoning-LLM techniques for medicine, from CoT prompting to RL-trained medical models, with no new experiments and several placeholder citations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Abdulla, K.; Mukherjee, S.; and Ranganathan, P. 2023. Integrating Multimodal Data for Enhancing Knowledge Graphs: Current Challenges and Opportunities . Journal of Big Data, 10(1): 1--15

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    S.; Neupane, S.; Kumar Manchukonda, H.; Golilarz, N

    Al Khatib, H. S.; Neupane, S.; Kumar Manchukonda, H.; Golilarz, N. A.; Mittal, S.; Amirlatifi, A.; and Rahimi, S. 2024. Patient-centric Knowledge Graphs: A Survey of Current Methods, Challenges, and Applications . Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 7: 1388479

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    B.; and Malik, K

    Alam, F.; Giglou, H. B.; and Malik, K. M. 2023. Automated Clinical Knowledge Graph Generation Framework for Evidence-based Medicine . Expert Systems with Applications, 233: 120964

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Alsentzer, E.; Murphy, J.; Boag, W.; Weng, W.; Jin, D.; Naumann, T.; and McDermott, M. 2019. Publicly Available Clinical BERT Embeddings . arXiv:1901.08746

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Amos, L.; Anderson, D.; Brody, S.; Ripple, A.; and Humphreys, B. L. 2020. UMLS Users and Uses: A Current Overview . Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 27(10): 1606--1611

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Avula, R.; et al. 2022. Data-Driven Decision-Making in Healthcare Through Advanced Data Mining Techniques: A Survey on Applications and Limitations . International Journal of Applied Machine Learning and Computational Intelligence, 12(4): 64--85

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    P.; Ye, C.; Swiers, R.; Engkvist, O.; Bender, A.; Hoyt, C

    Bonner, S.; Barrett, I. P.; Ye, C.; Swiers, R.; Engkvist, O.; Bender, A.; Hoyt, C. T.; and Hamilton, W. L. 2022. A Review of Biomedical Datasets Relating to Drug Discovery: A Knowledge Graph Perspective . Briefings in Bioinformatics, 23(6): bbac404

    2022

  2. [10]

    Bosselut, A.; Chen, Z.; Romanou, A.; Bonnet, A.; Hern \'a ndez-Cano, A.; Alkhamissi, B.; Matoba, K.; Salvi, F.; Pagliardini, M.; Fan, S.; et al. 2024. MEDITRON: Open Medical Foundation Models Adapted for Clinical Practice

    2024

  3. [11]

    Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; and Askell, A. 2020. Language Models Are Few-Shot Learners . arXiv:2005.14165

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Chang, E.; and Mostafa, J. 2021. The Use of SNOMED CT, 2013-2020: A Literature Review . Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(9): 2017--2026

    2021

  5. [13]

    Du, K.; Yang, B.; Wang, S.; Chang, Y.; Li, S.; and Yi, G. 2022. Relation extraction for manufacturing knowledge graphs based on feature fusion of attention mechanism and graph convolution network. Knowledge-Based Systems, 255: 109703

    2022

  6. [14]

    A.; Cabrio, E.; de la Iglesia, I.; Lavelli, A.; Magnini, B.; Molinet, B.; Ramirez-Romero, J.; Rigau, G.; et al

    Garc \' a-Ferrero, I.; Agerri, R.; Salazar, A. A.; Cabrio, E.; de la Iglesia, I.; Lavelli, A.; Magnini, B.; Molinet, B.; Ramirez-Romero, J.; Rigau, G.; et al. 2024. Medical mT5: An Open-Source Multilingual Text-to-Text LLM for the Medical Domain . arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07613

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    V.; Wiest, O.; and Zhang, X

    Guo, T.; Chen, X.; Wang, Y.; Chang, R.; Pei, S.; Chawla, N. V.; Wiest, O.; and Zhang, X. 2024. Large Language Model Based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges . arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Huang, L.; Yu, W.; Ma, W.; Zhong, W.; Feng, Z.; Wang, H.; Chen, Q.; Peng, W.; Feng, X.; Qin, B.; et al. 2023. A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions . ACM Transactions on Information Systems

    2023

  9. [17]

    Li, L.; Wang, P.; Yan, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, S.; Jiang, J.; Sun, Z.; Tang, B.; Chang, T.-H.; Wang, S.; et al. 2020. Real-World Data Medical Knowledge Graph: Construction and Applications . Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 103: 101817

    2020

  10. [18]

    Liu, Y.; Ott, M.; Goyal, N.; Du, J.; Joshi, M.; Chen, D.; Levy, O.; Lewis, M.; Zettlemoyer, L.; and Stoyanov, V. 2023. Med-HALT: Evaluating Hallucinations in Medical LLMs . arXiv:2410.15702

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J.; Ruchkin, I.; and Zheng, X

    Lu, Z.; Afridi, I.; Kang, H. J.; Ruchkin, I.; and Zheng, X. 2024. Surveying Neuro-Symbolic Approaches for Reliable Artificial Intelligence of Things . Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments, 10(3): 257--279

    2024

  12. [20]

    Luo, R.; Sun, L.; Xia, Y.; Qin, T.; Zhang, S.; Poon, H.; and Liu, T.-Y. 2022. BioGPT: Generative Pre-Trained Transformer for Biomedical Text Generation and Mining . Briefings in Bioinformatics, 23(6): bbac409

    2022

  13. [21]

    Masoumi, S.; Amirkhani, H.; Sadeghian, N.; and Shahraz, S. 2024. Natural Language Processing (NLP) to Facilitate Abstract Review in Medical Research: The Application of BioBERT to Exploring the 20-Year Use of NLP in Medical Research . Systematic Reviews, 13(1): 107

    2024

  14. [22]

    C.; Sanderson, D.; Mart \' nez-Arellano, G.; and Ratchev, S

    Mo, F.; Chaplin, J. C.; Sanderson, D.; Mart \' nez-Arellano, G.; and Ratchev, S. 2024. Semantic models and knowledge graphs as manufacturing system reconfiguration enablers . Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 86: 102625

    2024

  15. [23]

    T.; Zhang, S.; Carignan, D.; Edgar, R.; Fusi, N.; King, N.; Larson, J.; Li, Y.; Liu, W.; et al

    Nori, H.; Lee, Y. T.; Zhang, S.; Carignan, D.; Edgar, R.; Fusi, N.; King, N.; Larson, J.; Li, Y.; Liu, W.; et al. 2023. Can Generalist Foundation Models Outcompete Special-Purpose Tuning? Case Study in Medicine . arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16452

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    OpenAI . 2022. ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue . OpenAI Technical Blog

    2022

  17. [25]

    OpenAI . 2023. GPT-4 Technical Report . arXiv :2303.08774

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    G.; Amod, A.; and Kumar, S

    Pandey, H. G.; Amod, A.; and Kumar, S. 2024. Advancing Healthcare Automation: Multi-Agent System for Medical Necessity Justification . In Demner-Fushman, D.; Ananiadou, S.; Miwa, M.; Roberts, K.; and Tsujii, J., eds., Proceedings of the 23rd Workshop on Biomedical Natural Lang...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Peng, C.; Xia, F.; Naseriparsa, M.; and Osborne, F. 2023. Knowledge Graphs: Opportunities and Challenges . Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(11): 13071--13102

    2023

  20. [28]

    Qian, J.; Jin, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Cai, G.; and Liu, B. 2024. A Liver Cancer Question-Answering System Based on Next-Generation Intelligence and the Large Model Med-PaLM 2 . International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology, 2(1): 28--35

    2024

  21. [29]

    L.; Ma, J.; et al

    Rives, A.; Meier, J.; Sercu, T.; Goyal, S.; Lin, Z.; Liu, J.; Guo, D.; Ott, M.; Zitnick, C. L.; Ma, J.; et al. 2021. Biological Structure and Function Emerge from Scaling Unsupervised Learning to 250 Million Protein Sequences . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Shuifa, S.; Xiaolong, L.; Weisheng, L.; Dajiang, L.; Sihui, L.; Liu, Y.; and Yirong, W. 2023. Review of Graph Neural Networks Applied to Knowledge Graph Reasoning . Journal of Frontiers of Computer Science & Technology, 17(1): 27

    2023

  23. [31]

    S.; Wei, J.; Chung, H

    Singhal, K.; Azizi, S.; Tu, T.; Mahdavi, S. S.; Wei, J.; Chung, H. W.; Scales, N.; Tanwani, A.; Cole-Lewis, H.; Pfohl, S.; et al. 2023 a . Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge . Nature, 620(7972): 172--180

    2023

  24. [32]

    Singhal, K.; Tu, T.; Gottweis, J.; Sayres, R.; and Wulczyn, E. 2023 b . Towards Expert-Level Medical Question Answering with Large Language Models . Nature Medicine, 29(1): 50--58

    2023

  25. [33]

    W.; Yung, K

    Tang, X.; Chi, G.; Cui, L.; Ip, A. W.; Yung, K. L.; and Xie, X. 2023. Exploring Research on the Construction and Application of Knowledge Graphs for Aircraft Fault Diagnosis . Sensors, 23(11): 5295

    2023

  26. [34]

    Tonmoy, S.; Zaman, S.; Jain, V.; Rani, A.; Rawte, V.; Chadha, A.; and Das, A. 2024. A Comprehensive Survey of Hallucination Mitigation Techniques in Large Language Models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.01313

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Touvron, H.; Lavril, T.; Izacard, G.; Martinet, X.; Lachaux, M.-A.; Lacroix, T.; Rozi \`e re, B.; Goyal, N.; Hambro, E.; Azhar, F.; et al. 2023. LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models . arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Wu, J.; Zhu, J.; Qi, Y.; Chen, J.; Xu, M.; Menolascina, F.; and Grau, V. 2024. Medical Graph RAG: Towards Safe Medical Large Language Model via Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation . arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04187

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Wu, Z.; Zhang, Y.; and Lin, X. 2023. Scalability Challenges in Medical Knowledge Graph Construction . IEEE Transactions on Medical Informatics, 14(2): 120--132

    2023

  30. [38]

    Zhang, J.; Zan, H.; Wu, S.; Zhang, K.; and Huo, J. 2024. Adaptive Graph Neural Network with Incremental Learning Mechanism for Knowledge Graph Reasoning . Electronics, 13(14): 2778

    2024

  31. [39]

    Zhang, Y. 2021. Knowledge Reasoning with Graph Neural Networks . Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta, GA, USA

    2021

  32. [40]

    Zhang, Y.; Li, X.; and Wang, J. 2023. Knowledge Graph for Fraud Detection: Case of Fraudulent Related Party Transactions . In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 182--194. Springer

    2023

  33. [41]

    Zhou, J.; Cui, G.; Zhang, Z.; Yang, C.; Liu, Z.; Wang, L.; Li, C.; and Sun, M. 2022. Graph Neural Networks: A Review of Methods and Applications . AI Open, 1(1): 1--12

    2022

  34. [42]

    Zuo, K.; and Jiang, Y. 2024. MedHallBench: A New Benchmark for Assessing Hallucination in Medical Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18947

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Zuo, K.; Tang, J.; Qin, H.; Luo, B.; He, L.; and Tang, S. 2025. Satisfactory Medical Consultation based on Terminology-Enhanced Information Retrieval and Emotional In-Context Learning. arXiv:2503.17876

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.