A Smart Multimodal Healthcare Copilot with Powerful LLM Reasoning

Chunyan Miao; Siyan Liu; Su-Yin Yang; Xuejiao Zhao

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A Smart Multimodal Healthcare Copilot with Powerful LLM Reasoning

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MedRAG claims that conditioning a medical language model on disease-feature triplets from a diagnostic knowledge graph, alongside retrieved patient records, makes its diagnostic suggestions more accurate and more specific than existing…

desk verdict A demo/extension paper that inherits a stronger prior paper's method but does not itself support the advertised superiority over RAG baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02470 v1 pith:WHLWKLW6 submitted 2025-06-03 cs.AI

Xuejiao Zhao , Siyan Liu , Su-Yin Yang , Chunyan Miao This is my paper

classification cs.AI

keywords multimodalhealthcareretrieval-augmentedgenerationknowledgegraphdiagnosticreasoningmedicalcopilotelectronichealthrecordsvoicemonitoringdifferentialdiagnosis

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

MedRAG claims that a medical AI assistant gives more accurate and more specific diagnostic suggestions when, before answering, it retrieves relevant patient records and also pulls structured disease-feature facts from a purpose-built diagnostic knowledge graph to steer the reasoning of a large language model. The system accepts three input modes — voice-captured doctor-patient conversation, typed medical queries, and electronic health records — and outputs diagnostic, treatment, medication, and follow-up-question recommendations. On a public differential-diagnosis dataset and a private dataset from a Singapore hospital, the paper reports that MedRAG outperforms existing retrieval-augmented generation approaches, and four doctors rated it higher than a plain GPT-4o baseline on human-factors criteria such as clinical relevance and adoption intention. If true, the claim matters because misdiagnosis is a known source of patient harm, and making AI-generated diagnostic advice more specific could support rather than replace clinical judgment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the diagnostic knowledge graph and the KG-elicited reasoning loop built around it. The graph is four-tiered, with nodes for disease features, diseases, subcategories, and categories; it is constructed by clustering diseases with similar manifestations and decomposing each disease into unique features, then expanded by a commercial LLM (GPT-4o) that adds more unique features per disease within each subcategory to sharpen discrimination among look-alike conditions. At inference, MedRAG finds the most relevant subcategory for the patient's manifestations, extracts the triplets $\langle\text{disease}, \text{relation}, \text{feature}\rangle$ in that subcategory, retrieves the top-3 EHRs by cosine similarity using an embedding model, and concatenates both kinds of context into the prompt for the backbone LLM. A similarity threshold on retrieval decides whether the system produces diagnostic recommendations or instead generates targeted follow-up questions about the most critical unmentioned features, so the same mechanism both conditions the prompt and steers the conversation.

What would settle it

Run the same system on the public DDXPlus test set under three conditions: retrieved EHRs only, retrieved EHRs plus triplets from the current GPT-4o-expanded graph, and retrieved EHRs plus triplets from a clinician-validated graph. If diagnostic accuracy on look-alike disease pairs is no higher with the triplets than without them, the claim that KG-elicited reasoning improves accuracy is falsified; the same test would show whether the graph's feature quality, rather than its presence, drives the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that KG-elicited reasoning improves diagnostic accuracy: once MedRAG constructs a four-tier diagnostic knowledge graph (features, diseases, subcategories, categories) from the EHR database, it identifies the most relevant subcategory for the patient's manifestations, gathers the associated $\langle\text{disease}, \text{relation}, \text{feature}\rangle$ triplets, and hands those triplets to the backbone LLM together with the top-3 most semantically similar EHRs retrieved by cosine similarity. This structured context is what the paper says lets the LLM separate look-alike diseases and produce precise, context-aware recommendations instead of vague or incorrect ones. The system also decides when it lacks enough evidence: if retrieval similarity falls below a threshold, it asks the physician the most discriminating unmentioned disease feature as a follow-up question before committing to a diagnosis. The evaluation covers text and voice modalities on the public DDXPlus dataset and the private CPDD dataset, comparing against LLMs and existing RAG approaches.

Load-bearing premise

The reasoning advantage rests on the assumption that the GPT-4o-generated unique features stored in the knowledge graph are correct and discriminative enough to separate look-alike diseases; the paper does not validate this graph against a gold standard, so if the features are noisy or incomplete the retrieved triplets could mislead the backbone LLM and erase the claimed gain.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any RAG-based medical assistant can in principle become more specific by conditioning the backbone LLM on structured disease-feature triplets rather than on retrieved documents alone.
Because the knowledge graph is built from an EHR database, the reasoning advantage is tied to the local patient population and can be rebuilt for a new hospital's records.
The threshold-based follow-up question mechanism implies the copilot can resolve ambiguity before giving a diagnosis, rather than answering from insufficient evidence.
The voice modality extends the same reasoning to live doctor-patient consultations, so the accuracy gain is not limited to typed queries or uploaded files.
The reported doctor evaluation says clinicians perceived MedRAG as more evidence-based and were more willing to adopt it than a plain LLM, a necessary condition for real deployment.

Reading between the lines

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

An ablation that removes the KG triplets but keeps the same retrieved EHRs, on the same backbone LLM, would isolate whether the knowledge graph or the RAG documents cause the reported accuracy gain; the paper's comparisons do not fully separate these.
Because the KG's unique features are generated by GPT-4o without validation against a curated ontology or clinician annotation, a natural check is to measure how diagnostic accuracy changes when those features are corrected or filtered.
The same conditioning scheme could transfer to other high-stakes decision settings where similar cases must be told apart by subtle structured features, such as equipment fault diagnosis or legal triage.
A stronger test of the clinical claim would be a prospective study where doctors make diagnoses with and without MedRAG's suggestions; the paper reports retrospective dataset and case-study results only.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper is best read as a system demonstration that extends the authors' own WWW 2025 MedRAG paper. The genuinely new material is voice input via Google Speech-to-Text, a Streamlit UI, and a small clinician evaluation. That is incremental, not a new method. The KG-elicited reasoning RAG design is plausible, and the authors ship code and a demo link, which is useful for people building similar copilots. The four-doctor evaluation is a real attempt to gather clinical usability feedback, even though it is small.

The central claim in the abstract and introduction — that MedRAG outperforms existing RAG approaches — is not supported by the evidence in this submission. Table 1 compares MedRAG against three bare LLMs, not a single RAG baseline. Table 2 reports L1/L2/L3 numbers on the private CPDD dataset with no metric definitions and no error bars. The public DDXPlus results mentioned in the introduction do not appear in the main text. The doctor evaluation covers three cases and four doctors, measuring subjective criteria; that is illustrative, not evidence of diagnostic superiority. I also share the concern about the GPT-4o-generated disease features in the KG: there is no validation against a gold standard, and the reasoning advantage depends on those features being discriminative. That concern is real but not fatal, because the method was already presented in the WWW paper, which may contain stronger evaluation.

The self-citation is appropriate and transparent. The authors are not hiding that the core method comes from their earlier work. The paper is honest about the system's components. What it is not is a standalone scientific demonstration of the superiority claim.

For a main track, the evidence gap is too large; I would reject. But this is exactly the kind of paper that could succeed in a demo or applied track: the artifact is concrete, the code is released, and the missing baselines and metric definitions are fixable in a revision. I would recommend sending it to a workshop rather than desk rejecting, and if the venue is full-paper only, a clear reject with the request to add a real RAG baseline and public-dataset results would be fair.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents MedRAG, a multimodal healthcare copilot that combines voice transcription, free-text queries, and electronic health record (EHR) uploads, and routes them through a retrieval-augmented generator whose context is enriched by a four-tiered diagnostic knowledge graph. The KG is constructed by clustering diseases and expanding disease-specific features with GPT-4o. The system outputs diagnostic, treatment, medication, and follow-up recommendations. The paper claims that KG-elicited reasoning improves diagnostic accuracy over existing RAG models, and reports a case study against three bare LLMs, a quantitative table on a private hospital dataset (CPDD), and a small doctor evaluation against GPT-4o. The discussion emphasizes the system's ability to proactively generate follow-up questions and support multimodal clinical workflows.

Significance. If the comparative claim were substantiated, MedRAG would be a practically useful clinical decision-support tool, and the KG-elicited RAG design would be a plausible contribution to medical AI. The availability of source code, a demo video, and a hospital-linked evaluation is commendable. However, as submitted, the evidence does not establish the central claim: no RAG baseline is compared, the private dataset metrics are undefined, and the human evaluation is anecdotal. The significance of the paper is therefore limited until a proper evaluation is provided.

major comments (5)

[Section 3.2, Table 1] The only head-to-head comparison in the paper pits MedRAG against Llama3.1-8b, Mixtral-8x7b, and Qwen2.5-72b, all of which are used without any retrieval augmentation. This compares MedRAG to plain LLM prompting, not to an existing RAG system, so it does not support the abstract's statement that MedRAG is 'outperforming existing models' or the Introduction's claim of 'superiority over existing RAG approaches.'
[Table 2] The quantitative results on the private CPDD dataset report L1, L2, and L3 scores for two backbone LLMs in text and voice modes, but the main text never defines these metrics, no baseline system (e.g., standard RAG or GraphRAG without KG-elicited reasoning) is run, and no error bars or significance tests are provided. These numbers cannot be interpreted or compared, and they do not demonstrate superiority over any existing RAG method.
[Section 3.3, Figure 3] The doctor evaluation uses only three representative cases and compares MedRAG with GPT-4o on subjective Human Factors criteria (e.g., Clinical Relevance and Trust) rather than on diagnostic accuracy against a gold standard or an existing RAG system. A three-case, subjective evaluation is not a basis for the general claim of 'more specific and accurate healthcare assistance.'
[Introduction and Abstract] The paper states that 'We evaluate MedRAG on both public (DDXPlus) and private (CPDD) datasets,' but no DDXPlus results appear anywhere in the main text. The only quantitative evaluation is on the private CPDD dataset, which is not publicly available, so the claimed public-dataset evaluation cannot be checked.
[Section 2.2] The diagnostic KG's discriminative power rests on GPT-4o-generated 'unique features' for each disease. The paper reports no validation of these features against clinical guidelines, no assessment of KG coverage, and no ablation showing how diagnosis quality varies with KG quality. Since the entire reasoning advantage is mediated by this KG, the claim that KG-elicited reasoning enhances accuracy is not substantiated without such an assessment.

minor comments (5)

[Table 2] The abbreviations L1, L2, and L3 are used without definition in the main text; they should be defined at first use or by reference to a specific appendix equation.
[Table 1] The query shown in Table 1 appears truncated in the manuscript; the full patient description should be reproduced so that the case is self-contained.
[References] The reference list contains several nonstandard entries (e.g., [ava, 2024] is a URL with no author, and [Journal, 2023] uses a publisher as author); the bibliography should be formatted consistently.
[Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced in the text but not visible in the provided manuscript; ensure all figures are embedded and legible in the submission.
[Section 2.2] The retrieval uses a fixed top-k of 3 relevant EHRs and a predefined similarity threshold, but no sensitivity analysis is reported; the authors should justify these choices or show how results vary with them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-citation but no circular derivation; the main deficiency is evidential (no RAG baseline, undefined metrics), not definitional.

full rationale

MedRAG's central claim—that KG-elicited reasoning improves diagnostic accuracy—is an empirical claim about a retrieval pipeline, not a definitional identity. The knowledge graph is constructed by clustering EHRs and expanding disease features with GPT-4o (Section 2.2); retrieval selects triplets and top-k EHRs by cosine similarity, and the backbone LLM generates the final output. Nothing in the paper defines the output diagnosis to be the retrieved triplet or the GPT-4o-expanded feature, so the claimed enhancement is not forced by construction. The abstract's statement that MedRAG 'outperforms existing models' is not substantiated by the included comparisons (Table 1 compares against bare LLMs Llama3.1-8b, Mixtral-8x7b, Qwen2.5-72b; Table 2 on CPDD has no RAG baseline and no metric definitions; Figure 3 is a subjective doctor evaluation against GPT-4o only), but this is an evidence and reproducibility deficiency, not circularity. The self-citation in the Introduction, 'we present MedRAG [Zhao et al., 2025]', identifies the system and points to the companion WWW 2025 paper, but it is not load-bearing here because the current paper itself describes the method and reports its own evaluation. The citation to [Zhao et al., 2017] for decomposing disease manifestations into unique features is a prior-technique citation and is not used to justify the main accuracy claim. No circular step meets the required standard of quoting a specific reduction of a prediction to an input parameter or fit. The score of 2 reflects the minor self-citation presence rather than any definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim depends on several unstated or unparameterized choices: the number of retrieved records, an unreported similarity threshold, and the unvalidated GPT-4o-augmented knowledge graph. The private dataset and small human evaluation make the reported numbers impossible to audit.

free parameters (2)

top_k retrieved EHRs = 3
The retrieval window used for RAG context; chosen by the authors without sensitivity analysis (Section 2.2).
semantic similarity threshold for follow-up questions = not specified
A predefined threshold decides whether the system asks follow-up questions or diagnoses; the value is not reported (Section 2.2).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption EHRs are systematically collected and structured, making them reliable retrieval documents.
Used in Section 2.2 as the basis for using the EHR database for retrieval.
domain assumption Cosine similarity of OpenAI text embeddings is a valid proxy for clinical relevance between input manifestations and EHRs.
Used in Section 2.2 for retrieval and threshold decisions.
ad hoc to paper GPT-4o-expanded unique disease features are accurate and discriminating within each subcategory.
Introduced in Section 2.2 to differentiate similar diseases; no external validation.
ad hoc to paper The private CPDD dataset and the three-case doctor evaluation reflect real-world diagnostic accuracy.
Central evaluation is on this dataset and small human eval; no external benchmark.

invented entities (1)

Four-tiered diagnostic knowledge graph (features, diseases, subcategories, categories)
purpose: Stores structured disease-feature relationships to elicit reasoning from the LLM for differential diagnosis.
The KG is the core new mechanism, but its correctness and discriminative power are not validated against any external medical standard.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Smart Multimodal Healthcare Copilot with Powerful LLM Reasoning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WHLWKLW6

@misc{pith2026250602470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Smart Multimodal Healthcare Copilot with Powerful LLM Reasoning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WHLWKLW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02470}
}

read the original abstract

Misdiagnosis causes significant harm to healthcare systems worldwide, leading to increased costs and patient risks. MedRAG is a smart multimodal healthcare copilot equipped with powerful large language model (LLM) reasoning, designed to enhance medical decision-making. It supports multiple input modalities, including non-intrusive voice monitoring, general medical queries, and electronic health records. MedRAG provides recommendations on diagnosis, treatment, medication, and follow-up questioning. Leveraging retrieval-augmented generation enhanced by knowledge graph-elicited reasoning, MedRAG retrieves and integrates critical diagnostic insights, reducing the risk of misdiagnosis. It has been evaluated on both public and private datasets, outperforming existing models and offering more specific and accurate healthcare assistance. A demonstration video of MedRAG is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNIBDMYRfDM. The source code is available at: https://github.com/SNOWTEAM2023/MedRAG.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02470 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** User Interface of MedRAG Backbone LLM Modal L1 L2 L3 GPT-4o text 91.87 81.78 73.23 GPT-4o voice 88.23 78.43 70.58 GPT-3.5-turbo text 70.56 68.68 50.57 GPT-3.5-turbo voice 64.70 60.78 45.09 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

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

Dr.Copilot: A Multi-Agent Prompt Optimized Assistant for Improving Patient-Doctor Communication in Romanian
cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A multi-agent LLM assistant with DSPy-optimized prompts improved Romanian doctors' written communication quality and patient satisfaction in a live telemedicine deployment, but the evaluation is confounded by self-sel...
Are Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks Truly Effective for Node Classification? A Causal Perspective
cs.LG 2025-10 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

A large benchmark suggests tuned RGCN matches complex HGNNs and heterogeneous graphs help mainly via homophily and local-global label discrepancy, but the causal analysis is circular.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Ai-powered copilot for healthcare sales agents: Enhancing customer engagement and test recommendations

Durga Prasad Amballa. Ai-powered copilot for healthcare sales agents: Enhancing customer engagement and test recommendations. Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research , 10(10):164--167, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

https://www.avanade.com/en/services/artificial-intelligence/ai-copilot-hub/health-ai-copilot, 2024

Microsoft copilot in healthcare. https://www.avanade.com/en/services/artificial-intelligence/ai-copilot-hub/health-ai-copilot, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-11

work page 2024
[3]

Investigating the impact of user trust on the adoption and use of chatgpt: survey analysis

Avishek Choudhury and Hamid Shamszare. Investigating the impact of user trust on the adoption and use of chatgpt: survey analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 25:e47184, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Factors influencing clinicians' willingness to use an ai-based clinical decision support system

Avishek Choudhury. Factors influencing clinicians' willingness to use an ai-based clinical decision support system. Frontiers in digital health , 4:920662, 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Electronic health record use issues and diagnostic error: a scoping review and framework

Ram A Dixit, Christian L Boxley, Sunil Samuel, Vishnu Mohan, Raj M Ratwani, and Jeffrey A Gold. Electronic health record use issues and diagnostic error: a scoping review and framework. Journal of patient safety , 19(1):e25--e30, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization

Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, and Jonathan Larson. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130 , 2024

arXiv 2024
[7]

Speech-to-text api, 2025

Google Cloud . Speech-to-text api, 2025. Accessed: Feb 12, 2025

work page 2025
[8]

Retrieval augmented language model pre-training

Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning , pages 3929--3938. PMLR, 2020

2020

Show all 25 references

[9]

Openai expands healthcare push with color health's cancer copilot

Wall Street Journal. Openai expands healthcare push with color health's cancer copilot. The Wall Street Journal , 2023. Accessed: 2024-09-18

2023
[10]

A survey of smart healthcare for the elderly based on user requirements and supply accessibility

Ching Hung Lee, Zehao Zhang, and Xuejiao Zhao. A survey of smart healthcare for the elderly based on user requirements and supply accessibility. In 5th International Conference on Crowd Science and Engineering , pages 108--112, 2021

2021
[11]

Chatdoctor: A medical chat model fine-tuned on a large language model meta-ai (llama) using medical domain knowledge

Yunxiang Li, Zihan Li, Kai Zhang, Ruilong Dan, Steve Jiang, and You Zhang. Chatdoctor: A medical chat model fine-tuned on a large language model meta-ai (llama) using medical domain knowledge. Cureus , 15(6), 2023

2023
[12]

Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the usa

David E Newman-Toker, Najlla Nassery, Adam C Schaffer, Chihwen Winnie Yu-Moe, Gwendolyn D Clemens, Zheyu Wang, Yuxin Zhu, Ali S Saber Tehrani, Mehdi Fanai, Ahmed Hassoon, et al. Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the usa. BMJ Quality & Safety , 33(2):109--120, 2024

2024
[13]

Color health's cancer copilot, 2023

OpenAI. Color health's cancer copilot, 2023. Accessed: 2024-09-18

2023
[14]

Fundamentals of evidence based medicine

Kameshwar Prasad et al. Fundamentals of evidence based medicine. Technical report, Springer, 2014

2014
[15]

A survey of artificial intelligence in gait-based neurodegenerative disease diagnosis

Haocong Rao, Minlin Zeng, Xuejiao Zhao, and Chunyan Miao. A survey of artificial intelligence in gait-based neurodegenerative disease diagnosis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.13082 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[16]

Healthcare copilot: Eliciting the power of general llms for medical consultation

Zhiyao Ren, Yibing Zhan, Baosheng Yu, Liang Ding, and Dacheng Tao. Healthcare copilot: Eliciting the power of general llms for medical consultation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13408 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[17]

A comprehensive exploration to the machine learning techniques for diabetes identification

Sidong Wei, Xuejiao Zhao, and Chunyan Miao. A comprehensive exploration to the machine learning techniques for diabetes identification. In 2018 IEEE 4th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) , pages 291--295. IEEE, 2018

2018
[18]

Pmc-llama: toward building open-source language models for medicine

Chaoyi Wu, Weixiong Lin, Xiaoman Zhang, Ya Zhang, Weidi Xie, and Yanfeng Wang. Pmc-llama: toward building open-source language models for medicine. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , page ocae045, 2024

2024
[19]

Medical graph rag: Towards safe medical large language model via graph retrieval-augmented generation

Junde Wu, Jiayuan Zhu, and Yunli Qi. Medical graph rag: Towards safe medical large language model via graph retrieval-augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04187 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[20]

Almanac copilot: Towards autonomous electronic health record navigation

Cyril Zakka, Joseph Cho, Gracia Fahed, Rohan Shad, Michael Moor, Robyn Fong, Dhamanpreet Kaur, Vishnu Ravi, Oliver Aalami, Roxana Daneshjou, et al. Almanac copilot: Towards autonomous electronic health record navigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07896 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[21]

Rare disease diagnosis using knowledge guided retrieval augmentation for chatgpt

Charlotte Zelin, Wendy K Chung, Mederic Jeanne, Gongbo Zhang, and Chunhua Weng. Rare disease diagnosis using knowledge guided retrieval augmentation for chatgpt. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , 157:104702, 2024

2024
[22]

Hdskg: Harvesting domain specific knowledge graph from content of webpages

Xuejiao Zhao, Zhenchang Xing, Muhammad Ashad Kabir, Naoya Sawada, Jing Li, and Shang-Wei Lin. Hdskg: Harvesting domain specific knowledge graph from content of webpages. In 2017 ieee 24th international conference on software analysis, evolution and reengineering (saner) , page...

2017
[23]

Brain-inspired search engine assistant based on knowledge graph

Xuejiao Zhao, Huanhuan Chen, Zhenchang Xing, and Chunyan Miao. Brain-inspired search engine assistant based on knowledge graph. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 34(8):4386--4400, 2021

2021
[24]

Medrag: Enhancing retrieval-augmented generation with knowledge graph-elicited reasoning for healthcare copilot

Xuejiao Zhao, Siyan Liu, Su-Yin Yang, and Chunyan Miao. Medrag: Enhancing retrieval-augmented generation with knowledge graph-elicited reasoning for healthcare copilot. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 , pages 4442--4457, 2025

2025
[25]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry add.period write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence '...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ai-powered copilot for healthcare sales agents: Enhancing customer engagement and test recommendations

Durga Prasad Amballa. Ai-powered copilot for healthcare sales agents: Enhancing customer engagement and test recommendations. Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research , 10(10):164--167, 2023

work page 2023

[2] [2]

https://www.avanade.com/en/services/artificial-intelligence/ai-copilot-hub/health-ai-copilot, 2024

Microsoft copilot in healthcare. https://www.avanade.com/en/services/artificial-intelligence/ai-copilot-hub/health-ai-copilot, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-11

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Investigating the impact of user trust on the adoption and use of chatgpt: survey analysis

Avishek Choudhury and Hamid Shamszare. Investigating the impact of user trust on the adoption and use of chatgpt: survey analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 25:e47184, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [4]

Factors influencing clinicians' willingness to use an ai-based clinical decision support system

Avishek Choudhury. Factors influencing clinicians' willingness to use an ai-based clinical decision support system. Frontiers in digital health , 4:920662, 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Electronic health record use issues and diagnostic error: a scoping review and framework

Ram A Dixit, Christian L Boxley, Sunil Samuel, Vishnu Mohan, Raj M Ratwani, and Jeffrey A Gold. Electronic health record use issues and diagnostic error: a scoping review and framework. Journal of patient safety , 19(1):e25--e30, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization

Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, and Jonathan Larson. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130 , 2024

arXiv 2024

[7] [7]

Speech-to-text api, 2025

Google Cloud . Speech-to-text api, 2025. Accessed: Feb 12, 2025

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Retrieval augmented language model pre-training

Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Mingwei Chang. Retrieval augmented language model pre-training. In International conference on machine learning , pages 3929--3938. PMLR, 2020

2020