Lameck Mbangula Amugongo, Pietro Mascheroni, Steven Brooks, Stefan Doering, Jan Seidel
{"title":"Retrieval augmented generation for large language models in healthcare: A systematic review.","authors":"Lameck Mbangula Amugongo, Pietro Mascheroni, Steven Brooks, Stefan Doering, Jan Seidel","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0000877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities to solve complex tasks in critical sectors such as healthcare. However, LLMs are limited by their training data which is often outdated, the tendency to generate inaccurate (\"hallucinated\") content and a lack of transparency in the content they generate. To address these limitations, retrieval augmented generation (RAG) grounds the responses of LLMs by exposing them to external knowledge sources. However, in the healthcare domain there is currently a lack of systematic understanding of which datasets, RAG methodologies and evaluation frameworks are available. This review aims to bridge this gap by assessing RAG-based approaches employed by LLMs in healthcare, focusing on the different steps of retrieval, augmentation and generation. Additionally, we identify the limitations, strengths and gaps in the existing literature. Our synthesis shows that 78.9% of studies used English datasets and 21.1% of the datasets are in Chinese. We find that a range of techniques are employed RAG-based LLMs in healthcare, including Naive RAG, Advanced RAG, and Modular RAG. Surprisingly, proprietary models such as GPT-3.5/4 are the most used for RAG applications in healthcare. We find that there is a lack of standardised evaluation frameworks for RAG-based applications. In addition, the majority of the studies do not assess or address ethical considerations related to RAG in healthcare. It is important to account for ethical challenges that are inherent when AI systems are implemented in the clinical setting. Lastly, we highlight the need for further research and development to ensure responsible and effective adoption of RAG in the medical domain.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"4 6","pages":"e0000877"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12157099/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000877","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities to solve complex tasks in critical sectors such as healthcare. However, LLMs are limited by their training data which is often outdated, the tendency to generate inaccurate ("hallucinated") content and a lack of transparency in the content they generate. To address these limitations, retrieval augmented generation (RAG) grounds the responses of LLMs by exposing them to external knowledge sources. However, in the healthcare domain there is currently a lack of systematic understanding of which datasets, RAG methodologies and evaluation frameworks are available. This review aims to bridge this gap by assessing RAG-based approaches employed by LLMs in healthcare, focusing on the different steps of retrieval, augmentation and generation. Additionally, we identify the limitations, strengths and gaps in the existing literature. Our synthesis shows that 78.9% of studies used English datasets and 21.1% of the datasets are in Chinese. We find that a range of techniques are employed RAG-based LLMs in healthcare, including Naive RAG, Advanced RAG, and Modular RAG. Surprisingly, proprietary models such as GPT-3.5/4 are the most used for RAG applications in healthcare. We find that there is a lack of standardised evaluation frameworks for RAG-based applications. In addition, the majority of the studies do not assess or address ethical considerations related to RAG in healthcare. It is important to account for ethical challenges that are inherent when AI systems are implemented in the clinical setting. Lastly, we highlight the need for further research and development to ensure responsible and effective adoption of RAG in the medical domain.