Enhancing Pancreatic Cancer Staging with Large Language Models: The Role of Retrieval-Augmented Generation
On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → Medical and biomedical RAG
Abstract (arXiv)
Purpose: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a technology to enhance the functionality and reliability of large language models (LLMs) by retrieving relevant information from reliable external knowledge (REK). RAG has gained interest in radiology, and we previously reported the utility of NotebookLM, an LLM with RAG (RAG-LLM), for lung cancer staging. However, since the comparator LLM differed from NotebookLM's internal model, it remained unclear whether its advantage stemmed from RAG or inherent model differences. To better isolate RAG's impact and assess its utility across different cancers, we compared NotebookLM with its internal LLM, Gemini 2.0 Flash, in a pancreatic cancer staging experiment. Materials and Methods: A summary of Japan's pancreatic cancer staging guidelines was used as REK. We compared three groups - REK+/RAG+ (NotebookLM with REK), REK+/RAG- (Gemini 2.0 Flash with REK), and REK-/RAG- (Gemini 2.0 Flash without REK) - in staging 100 fictional pancreatic cancer cases based on CT findings. Staging criteria included TNM classification, local invasion factors, and resectability classification. In REK+/RAG+, retrieval accuracy was quantified based on the sufficiency of retrieved REK excerpts. Results: REK+/RAG+ achieved a staging accuracy of 70%, outperforming REK+/RAG- (38%) and REK-/RAG- (35%). For TNM classification, REK+/RAG+ attained 80% accuracy, exceeding REK+/RAG- (55%) and REK-/RAG- (50%). Additionally, REK+/RAG+ explicitly presented retrieved REK excerpts, achieving a retrieval accuracy of 92%. Conclusion: NotebookLM, a RAG-LLM, outperformed its internal LLM, Gemini 2.0 Flash, in a pancreatic cancer staging experiment, suggesting that RAG may improve LLM's staging accuracy. Furthermore, its ability to retrieve and present REK excerpts provides transparency for physicians, highlighting its applicability for clinical diagnosis and classification.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Medical and biomedical RAG, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 5 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Mar 2025.
Builds on
5 of 27 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 4
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,582
- 2021Retrieval Augmentation Reduces Hallucination in Conversationcited by 691
- 2023Ragas: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generationcited by 408
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Development and Testing of Retrieval Augmented Generation in Large Language Models -- A Case Study Report
- 2024oRetrieval Augmented Generation for 10 Large Language Models and its Generalizability in Assessing Medical Fitness
- 2025Retrieval Augmented Generation Evaluation for Health Documents
- 2024Language Models and Retrieval Augmented Generation for Automated Structured Data Extraction from Diagnostic Reports
- 2025Grounding Large Language Models in Clinical Evidence: A Retrieval-Augmented Generation System for Querying UK NICE Clinical Guidelines
- 2025Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Medicine: A Scoping Review of Technical Implementations, Clinical Applications, and Ethical Considerations
- 2025Rethinking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Medicine: A Large-Scale, Systematic Expert Evaluation and Practical Insights
- 2024Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Medicine