mamabench and mamaretrieval: Benchmarks for Evaluating Medical Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Maternal, Neonatal, and Reproductive Health

Maternal and newborn mortality remain among the highest in sub-Saharan Africa, where midwifery care is often delivered by nurses who lack midwifery training to international standards, and consulting authoritative guidance at the point of care is hard: the guidelines are long and connectivity is intermittent. We present MAM-AI, a medical question-answering assistant for nurse-midwives in Zanzibar that runs entirely on a commodity Android device: a question is embedded (EmbeddingGemma, 300M) and matched against a curated corpus of 87 guideline documents (63,650 passages), then answered with citations by a 4B int4 generator (Gemma 4 E4B), fully offline, with no query leaving the device. We evaluate the exact deployed configuration with a layered methodology -- retriever, generator under oracle context, end-to-end, and latency -- scored by LLM judges validated against physician rubrics. The evaluation relocates the hard problem. On-device retrieval is essentially solved: the 300M embedder ranks third of seven retrievers and rivals cloud systems, so the passages the system needs are usually found. The small generator is what remains in doubt: adding retrieved context does not improve its answers, and at 4B it cannot be both helpful and safe at once -- of two same-size candidates, the more helpful one commits genuine dangerous errors, so we deploy the other, which is about twice as faithful to its sources (as faithful as a frontier model), and recover its helpfulness with a redesigned prompt that cuts deflection from 33% to 3%. Corpus quality is decisive for the same reason: where the corpus holds the right passage the answer is specific and actionable, and where it does not it goes vague. MAM-AI is a thoroughly evaluated, open-source research prototype, not a fielded product; the system, knowledge base, benchmarks, and evaluation harness are released.

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.

Across medical specialties, clinical practice is anchored in evidence-based guidelines that codify best studied diagnostic and treatment pathways. These pathways routinely fall short for the long tail of real-world care not covered by guidelines. Most medical large language models (LLMs), however, are trained to encode common, guideline-focused medical knowledge in their parameters. Current evaluations test models primarily on recalling and reasoning with this memorized content, often in multiple-choice settings. Given the fundamental importance of evidence-based reasoning in medicine, it is neither feasible nor reliable to depend on memorization in practice. To address this gap, we introduce OGCaReBench, a free-form retrieval-focused benchmark aimed at evaluating LLMs at answering clinical questions that require going beyond typical guidelines. Extracted from published medical case reports and validated by medical experts, OGCaReBench contains long-form clinical questions requiring free-text answers, providing a systematic framework for assessing open-ended medical reasoning in rare, case-based scenarios. Our experiments reveal that even the best-performing baseline (GPT-5.2) correctly answers only 56% of our benchmark with specialized models only reaching 42%. Augmenting models with retrieved medical articles improves this performance to up to 82% (using GPT-5.2) highlighting the importance of evidence-grounding for real-world medical reasoning tasks. This work thus establishes a foundation for benchmarking and advancing both general-purpose and medical LLMs to produce reliable answers in challenging clinical contexts.