ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Development and evaluation of an agentic LLM based RAG framework for evidence-based patient education.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation Methods for Inference-Time Retrieval-Augmented and Graph Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models in Health Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Performance and usability of retrieval-augmented large language models for stroke patient and caregiver support.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and evaluate an agentic retrieval augmented generation (ARAG) framework using open-source large language models (LLMs) for generating evidence-based Arabic patient education materials (PEMs) and assess the LLMs capabilities as validation agents tasked with blocking harmful content.
methodsWe selected 12 LLMs and applied four experimental setups (base, base+prompt engineering, ARAG, and ARAG+prompt engineering). PEM generation quality was assessed via two-stage evaluation (automated LLM, then expert review) using 5 metrics (accuracy, readability, comprehensiveness, appropriateness and safety) against ground truth. Validation agent (VA) performance was evaluated separately using a harmful/safe PEM dataset, measuring blocking accuracy.
resultsARAG-enabled setups yielded the best generation performance for 10/12 LLMs. Arabic-focused models occupied the top 9 ranks. Expert evaluation ranking mirrored the automated ranking. AceGPT-v2-32B with ARAG and prompt engineering (setup 4) was confirmed highest-performing. VA accuracy correlated strongly with model size; only models ≥27B parameters achieved >0.80 accuracy. Fanar-7B performed well in generation but poorly as a VA. DISCUSSION: Arabic-centred models demonstrated advantages for the Arabic PEM generation task. ARAG enhanced generation quality, although context limits impacted large-context models. The validation task highlighted model size as critical for reliable performance.
conclusionARAG noticeably improves Arabic PEM generation, particularly with Arabic-centred models like AceGPT-v2-32B. Larger models appear necessary for reliable harmful content validation. Automated evaluation showed potential for ranking systems, aligning with expert judgement for top performers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.