Enhancing Large Language Models with Domain-specific Retrieval Augment Generation: A Case Study on Long-form Consumer Health Question Answering in Ophthalmology
Despite the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine, they may generate responses lacking supporting evidence or based on hallucinated evidence. While Retrieval Augment Generation (RAG) is popular to address this issue, few studies implemented and evaluated RAG in downstream domain-spec...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Despite the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine, they may
generate responses lacking supporting evidence or based on hallucinated
evidence. While Retrieval Augment Generation (RAG) is popular to address this
issue, few studies implemented and evaluated RAG in downstream domain-specific
applications. We developed a RAG pipeline with 70,000 ophthalmology-specific
documents that retrieve relevant documents to augment LLMs during inference
time. In a case study on long-form consumer health questions, we systematically
evaluated the responses including over 500 references of LLMs with and without
RAG on 100 questions with 10 healthcare professionals. The evaluation focuses
on factuality of evidence, selection and ranking of evidence, attribution of
evidence, and answer accuracy and completeness. LLMs without RAG provided 252
references in total. Of which, 45.3% hallucinated, 34.1% consisted of minor
errors, and 20.6% were correct. In contrast, LLMs with RAG significantly
improved accuracy (54.5% being correct) and reduced error rates (18.8% with
minor hallucinations and 26.7% with errors). 62.5% of the top 10 documents
retrieved by RAG were selected as the top references in the LLM response, with
an average ranking of 4.9. The use of RAG also improved evidence attribution
(increasing from 1.85 to 2.49 on a 5-point scale, P |
---|---|
DOI: | 10.48550/arxiv.2409.13902 |