RASC+: Retrieval-Constrained LLM Adjudication for Clinical Value Set Authoring

Clinical value set authoring -- the task of identifying all codes in a standardized vocabulary that define a clinical concept -- is a recurring bottleneck in clinical quality measurement and phenotyping. A natural approach is to prompt a large language model (LLM) to generate the required codes directly, but structured clinical vocabularies are large, version-controlled, and not reliably memorized during pretraining. We propose Retrieval-Augmented Set Completion (RASC): retrieve the $K$ most similar existing value sets from a curated corpus to form a candidate pool, then apply a classifier to each candidate code. Theoretically, retrieve-and-select can reduce statistical complexity by shrinking the effective output space from the full vocabulary to a much smaller retrieved candidate pool. We demonstrate the utility of RASC on 11,803 publicly available VSAC value sets, constructing the first large-scale benchmark for this task. A cross-encoder fine-tuned on SAPBert achieves AUROC0.852 and value-set-level F10.298, outperforming a simpler three-layer Multilayer Perceptron (AUROC0.799, F10.250) and both reduce the number of irrelevant candidates per true positive from 12.3 (retrieval-only) to approximately 3.2 and 4.4 respectively. Zero-shot GPT-4o achieves value-set-level F1~0.105, with 48.6% of returned codes absent from VSAC entirely. This performance gap widens with increasing value set size, consistent with RASC's theoretical advantage. We observe similar performance gains across two other classifier model types, namely a cross-encoder initialized from pre-trained SAPBert and a LightGBM model, demonstrating that RASC's benefits extend beyond a single model class. The code to download and create the benchmark dataset, as well as the model training code is available at: \href{https://github.com/mukhes3/RASC}{https://github.com/mukhes3/RASC}.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising results on medical question answering benchmarks, yet their use in public health is constrained by hallucinations and the rapid evolution of official guidance. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates these risks by grounding responses in an explicitly maintained corpus, but end-to-end performance depends critically on retrieval configuration and on evaluation beyond multiple-choice formats. We extend PubHealthBench, a question answering (QA) benchmark of 7,929 questions derived from UK Government public health guidance, into a retrieval-augmented setting and systematically evaluate retrieval and generation choices. We compare dense, sparse, and hybrid retrieval across multiple embedding models and corpus variants, and show that hybrid retrieval consistently improves recall and ranking quality, with chunk length and topic interacting with ranking performance. Providing retrieved context substantially increases multiple-choice accuracy across a diverse set of LLMs, enabling smaller open-weight models to match or outperform larger models used without retrieval, with gains primarily driven by retrieval quality and careful context selection. To assess realistic free-form answering, we introduce a rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge covering faithfulness, completeness, clarity, and factual consistency, and validate it against dual human annotations. Judge-human agreement is strongest for faithfulness and completeness, while factual consistency and clarity are less reliably reproduced, motivating caution when interpreting those dimensions at scale. Overall, our results highlight retrieval as a primary lever for reliable public health QA and provide practical guidance for building and evaluating RAG systems grounded in official guidance.

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.