Retrieval augmented generation for large language models in healthcare: A systematic review.

PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2025-06-11 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000877
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 However, LLMs are limited by their training data which is often outdated, the tendency to generate inaccurate (\"hallucinated\") content and a lack of transparency in the content they generate.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.

医疗保健中大型语言模型的检索增强生成:系统回顾。
大型语言模型(llm)在解决医疗保健等关键领域的复杂任务方面表现出了良好的能力。然而,法学硕士受到训练数据的限制,这些数据通常是过时的,倾向于生成不准确(“幻觉”)的内容,以及他们生成的内容缺乏透明度。为了解决这些限制,检索增强生成(RAG)通过将法学硕士的响应暴露给外部知识来源来建立响应的基础。然而,在医疗保健领域,目前缺乏对哪些数据集、RAG方法和评估框架可用的系统了解。本综述旨在通过评估医疗保健法学硕士采用的基于rag的方法来弥合这一差距,重点关注检索、增强和生成的不同步骤。此外,我们还确定了现有文献中的局限性、优势和差距。我们的综合显示78.9%的研究使用英文数据集,21.1%的研究使用中文数据集。我们发现在医疗保健领域采用了一系列基于RAG的法学硕士技术,包括幼稚RAG、高级RAG和模块化RAG。令人惊讶的是,诸如GPT-3.5/4之类的专有模型在医疗保健领域的RAG应用程序中使用得最多。我们发现基于rag的应用程序缺乏标准化的评估框架。此外,大多数研究没有评估或处理与医疗保健中RAG相关的伦理考虑。重要的是要考虑到人工智能系统在临床环境中实施时所固有的伦理挑战。最后,我们强调需要进一步研究和开发,以确保在医疗领域负责任和有效地采用RAG。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信