Toward trustworthy medical question answering: Multi-metric evidence for RAG-enhanced Large Language Models


Abstract

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into healthcare is hindered by their tendency to generate hallucinations, a critical issue in medical question answering (MedQA). Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) frameworks mitigate this by grounding LLMs in verifiable knowledge. In this study, a weight-preserving RAG pipeline was implemented and evaluated to enhance factual fidelity without fine-tuning the base model. GPT-4 was combined with a dense passage retriever, employing Facebook AI Similarity Search (FAISS) with the BAAI/bge-small-en encoder, and compared against a non-retrieval GPT-4 baseline. Evaluation was conducted on a held-out set of 1,000 questions using widely adopted computational metrics, including BLEU-1/2/3/4, ROUGE-L, METEOR, text-level F1, and Exact Match (EM), complemented by qualitative case analysis. The RAG-enhanced configuration significantly outperformed the baseline across all metrics. Most notably, a 40.1% relative improvement in BLEU-4 (0.3015 → 0.4224) and a 14.43% gain in METEOR (0.3880 → 0.4440) were observed, while the Exact Match rate more than doubled from 0.02 to 0.05. Qualitative analysis further indicated fewer omissions and more faithful terminology use, consistent with the quantitative results. These findings provide robust empirical evidence that a RAG architecture fundamentally enhances the factual reliability of GPT-4 in medical QA. The proposed framework offers a practical and scalable strategy to reduce hallucinations without task-specific fine-tuning, underscoring the potential of retrieval-augmented models to support trustworthy AI-assisted healthcare applications.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].