REVIEW 2 cited by
MKRAG: Medical Knowledge Retrieval Augmented Generation for Medical Question Answering
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
MKRAG: Medical Knowledge Retrieval Augmented Generation for Medical Question Answering
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs), although powerful in general domains, often perform poorly on domain-specific tasks such as medical question answering (QA). In addition, LLMs tend to function as "black-boxes", making it challenging to modify their behavior. To address the problem, our work employs a transparent process of retrieval augmented generation (RAG), aiming to improve LLM responses without the need for fine-tuning or retraining. Specifically, we propose a comprehensive retrieval strategy to extract medical facts from an external knowledge base, and then inject them into the LLM's query prompt. Focusing on medical QA, we evaluate the impact of different retrieval models and the number of facts on LLM performance using the MedQA-SMILE dataset. Notably, our retrieval-augmented Vicuna-7B model exhibited an accuracy improvement from 44.46% to 48.54%. This work underscores the potential of RAG to enhance LLM performance, offering a practical approach to mitigate the challenges posed by black-box LLMs.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Healthier LLMs: Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Public Health Question Answering
Hybrid RAG over UK public health guidance sharply raises MCQA accuracy and free-form faithfulness, letting smaller open models match larger closed models without retrieval.
-
Ten Headache Specialists versus Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Literature Summarization: A Critical Evaluation and Comparison
Headache specialists preferred their own literature summaries over those from Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama 3.1 in a blinded evaluation, though AI summaries were sometimes indistinguishable.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.