Retrieve, Then Classify: Corpus-Grounded Automation of Clinical Value Set Authoring

Clinical value sets define the standardized terminology codes used in quality measurement, phenotyping, cohort construction, and clinical decision support. The recently introduced Retrieval-Augmented Set Completion (RASC) benchmark showed that direct zero-shot large language model (LLM) generation is poorly suited to this task: clinical code systems are large, version-controlled, and not reliably memorized by language models. We study a stage-wise alternative in which candidate-pool construction is optimized for recall and a constrained LLM adjudicator is optimized for candidate selection. On the full 3,744-value-set RASC test split, Qwen3-based retrieval with vocabulary-aware expansion and code-display rescue retrieval increases candidate-pool recall from the original RASC retrieval baseline of 0.553 to 0.730; on the held-out-publisher stratum, pool recall is 0.655. The higher-recall pool alone is not sufficient: applying the original SAPBert cross-encoder to this expanded pool gives full-test macro F1 of 0.287 and held-out-publisher macro F1 of 0.233. Replacing the stage-2 selector with blinded GPT-5 adjudication over the same pool increases full-test macro F1 to 0.549 and held-out-publisher macro F1 to 0.533. These results show that retrieval-constrained LLM adjudication can substantially improve value set completion while preserving the safety constraint that all returned codes must come from an auditable candidate pool.

General-purpose large language models (LLMs) have recently been reported to match or exceed specialized clinical AI tools on medical benchmarks, but such comparisons draw on a narrow set of systems and on benchmarks developed largely in high-income settings. We evaluate VITA, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system purpose-built for contextual knowledge retrieval in India and other low- and middle-income (LMIC) settings. VITA retrieves from a curated corpus of disease-specific guidelines, India-specific antimicrobial resistance data, national formulary constraints, and resource-limited care protocols; its architecture and corpus are proprietary, but the benchmark, the physician-written rubrics, and our full response and scoring outputs are public for independent verification. On 4,023 English-language HealthBench questions (80.5% of the benchmark), scored with a GPT-4.1 judge, VITA ranked first with 51.9% of possible rubric points, ahead of GPT-5.4 (46.1%), o4-mini (44.3%), Gemini 3.1 Pro (42.6%), and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (37.3%), and scored highest on 45.4% of questions. To test robustness to newer models and judge lineage, a 500-question subset was re-run against current-generation models (GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.5 Pro, Grok 4.3) and graded by a neutral open-weight judge (DeepSeek-V4-Pro) sharing no lineage with any system tested. Here the gap narrowed to parity: VITA and GPT-5.5 were statistically indistinguishable on mean per-question score, while VITA led on points-weighted score and won the most questions. VITA's advantages in accuracy and completeness persisted under the neutral judge; its communication scores were lower. These results indicate that a purpose-built clinical RAG system remains competitive with frontier LLMs on an open benchmark, consistent with corpus specificity as a design variable that improves grounding at some cost to communication polish.

Electronic prior authorization workflows require FHIR Questionnaire items to carry LOINC codes, yet most items in the HL7 Da Vinci CDS-Library lack these bindings. We treat this as a retrieval problem: given a Questionnaire item's text, find the correct LOINC code in a pool of 97,314 active codes. We compare six methods (TF-IDF, frozen MiniLM, BioBERT, BioLORD, contrastively fine-tuned MiniLM, and a TF-IDF+GPT reranker) on a 54-item evaluation set spanning three query styles (natural question, medium, and terse). No single method wins on every metric. BioLORD, a frozen encoder pre-trained on biomedical ontology definitions, has the best top-rank accuracy (R@1 = 0.185, MRR = 0.246) despite seeing no task-specific data, while a contrastive fine-tune on raw LHC-Forms pairs takes R@5 (0.389) and R@10 (0.426). A distribution-shift ablation shows why the fine-tune in our main table is not the strongest one: adding GPT-generated paraphrases to the raw pairs drops R@5 from 0.389 to 0.296, so the augmented union underperforms raw-only training on every metric except R@1. Performance peaks at 5k training pairs. Error analysis on BioLORD's R@1 failures shows that wrong-specificity and ambiguous-text cases together account for 59% of errors.