ArticleAMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science2026
Evaluating RAG and Non-RAG Pipelines for Concept Discovery in Environmental Health Ontologies.
Article in AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The expansion of biomedical ontologies with relevant, high utility concepts remains a significant challenge in biomedical knowledge representation, particularly for rapidly evolving fields like Environmental Determinants of Health (EnDOH). In this work, we evaluate the effectiveness of using LLMs in support of ontology expansion, comparing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with non-RAG concept extraction from the medical literature. Candidate concepts were generated across 15 targeted topics using category-specific prompts. The quality of candidate concepts was assessed through semantic similarity to existing EnDOH concepts and sub-hierarchies. This design enables both a comparative analysis of RAG versus non-RAG concept extraction approaches and the identification of topic-level concept alignment with the ontology. Our results quantify the comparative strengths and weaknesses of RAG vs non-RAG concept extraction and offer a replicable methodology for effectively extracting potentially useful candidate concepts from the literature for the purpose of inclusion in biomedical ontologies.
Identifiers
42317801PMC13274364What 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.