Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42317801›Full record

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.

Naren Khatwani, Navya Martin Kollapally, Lijing Wang, James Geller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Naren KhatwaniDepartment of Data Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA.
Navya Martin KollapallyDepartment of Computer Science, Kean University, Union, NJ, USA.
Lijing WangDepartment of Data Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA.
James GellerDepartment of Data Science, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42317801
PMCPMC13274364

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.