Benchmarking large language models for question answering on German clinical practice guidelines.

IF 6.2 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Johannes Schwietering, Gregor Lichtner
{"title":"Benchmarking large language models for question answering on German clinical practice guidelines.","authors":"Johannes Schwietering, Gregor Lichtner","doi":"10.1136/bmjhci-2026-102207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Clinical practice guidelines are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, yet their implementation in routine care remains inconsistent. Large language models (LLMs), particularly with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), have shown strong performance in medical question answering, but their ability to use knowledge from German-language guidelines has not been systematically evaluated due to a lack of a dedicated benchmark. We therefore developed such a benchmark and evaluated guideline-based question answering with different LLMs and retriever configurations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed cpgQA-DE, an expert-validated benchmark dataset of 200 multiple-choice questions derived from 10 current German clinical practice guidelines across five specialties. All questions were reviewed for correctness, relevance and complexity. The dataset includes case-based and knowledge-based questions with metadata on guideline source, specialty, relevance and difficulty. We evaluated LLM performance using a RAG-based pipeline built on a corpus of German guidelines, comparing multiple model-retriever combinations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>RAG integration substantially improved accuracy across all tested models and for most retrievers. The best-performing configuration, GPT-5 combined with the multilingual-e5-large retriever, achieved an accuracy of 95%. Notably, the open-weight model gpt-oss-120b reached 90% accuracy when used with RAG.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>cpgQA-DE enables systematic and reproducible offline evaluation of guideline-aware question answering systems in the German healthcare context. The observed performance gains with RAG support the use of LLMs augmented with quality-assured external knowledge. Such systems may help bridge the evidence-practice gap by providing guideline-based recommendations at the point of care, while strong performance of open-weight models suggests potential for on-premises deployment in privacy-sensitive clinical environments.</p>","PeriodicalId":9050,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Health & Care Informatics","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13475501/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Health & Care Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2026-102207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, yet their implementation in routine care remains inconsistent. Large language models (LLMs), particularly with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), have shown strong performance in medical question answering, but their ability to use knowledge from German-language guidelines has not been systematically evaluated due to a lack of a dedicated benchmark. We therefore developed such a benchmark and evaluated guideline-based question answering with different LLMs and retriever configurations.

Methods: We developed cpgQA-DE, an expert-validated benchmark dataset of 200 multiple-choice questions derived from 10 current German clinical practice guidelines across five specialties. All questions were reviewed for correctness, relevance and complexity. The dataset includes case-based and knowledge-based questions with metadata on guideline source, specialty, relevance and difficulty. We evaluated LLM performance using a RAG-based pipeline built on a corpus of German guidelines, comparing multiple model-retriever combinations.

Results: RAG integration substantially improved accuracy across all tested models and for most retrievers. The best-performing configuration, GPT-5 combined with the multilingual-e5-large retriever, achieved an accuracy of 95%. Notably, the open-weight model gpt-oss-120b reached 90% accuracy when used with RAG.

Conclusions: cpgQA-DE enables systematic and reproducible offline evaluation of guideline-aware question answering systems in the German healthcare context. The observed performance gains with RAG support the use of LLMs augmented with quality-assured external knowledge. Such systems may help bridge the evidence-practice gap by providing guideline-based recommendations at the point of care, while strong performance of open-weight models suggests potential for on-premises deployment in privacy-sensitive clinical environments.

在德国临床实践指南上对大型语言模型进行基准测试。
目的:临床实践指南是循证医学的基石,但其在常规护理中的实施仍不一致。大型语言模型(llm),特别是检索增强生成(RAG),在医学问题回答方面表现出色,但由于缺乏专门的基准,它们使用德语指南知识的能力尚未得到系统评估。因此,我们开发了这样一个基准,并使用不同的llm和检索器配置评估基于指南的问答。方法:我们开发了cpgQA-DE,这是一个专家验证的基准数据集,包含200个多项选择题,来自德国5个专业的10个现行临床实践指南。对所有问题的正确性、相关性和复杂性进行了审查。该数据集包括基于案例和基于知识的问题,以及指南来源、专业、相关性和难度的元数据。我们使用建立在德国指南语料库上的基于rag的管道来评估LLM的性能,比较了多个模型检索器组合。结果:RAG集成大大提高了所有测试模型和大多数寻回犬的准确性。表现最好的配置,GPT-5结合多语言e5大寻回犬,达到了95%的准确率。值得注意的是,当与RAG一起使用时,开重模型gpt-oss-120b的准确率达到90%。结论:cpgQA-DE能够在德国医疗保健环境中对指南感知问答系统进行系统和可重复的离线评估。通过RAG观察到的性能增益支持使用llm,并增加有质量保证的外部知识。这样的系统可以通过在护理点提供基于指南的建议来帮助弥合证据与实践之间的差距,而开放权重模型的强大性能表明在隐私敏感的临床环境中进行内部部署的潜力。
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
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.90%
发文量
40
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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
小红书