Randomized trial examines RAG's effect on diagnostic accuracy in neuroradiology, suggesting improved outcomes with privacy considerations.
Accurate differential diagnosis (DDx) in neuroradiology is challenging and remains vulnerable to cognitive biases and inter-reader variability in clinical practice. Despite expert training, human-generated DDx may be limited in breadth. Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in assisting DDx generation; however, their performance may be limited by incomplete domain knowledge and concerns regarding data privacy and deployment latency. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) offers a potential solution by integrating external knowledge bases to enhance diagnostic accuracy while enabling on-premises implementation. To determine whether RAG improves LLM performance for neuroradiologic DDx and to compare proprietary versus open-source systems. We assembled a dataset of 737 challenging neuroradiology cases. Each case provided free-text imaging findings, clinical information, and a ground-truth diagnosis. A 1195-entry brain DDx knowledge base was synthesized using an LLM. Seven LLMs (five open-source, two proprietary) each generated ten-item DDx lists with and without RAG. Across models, RAG significantly improved DDx accuracy for the majority of LLMs ( p < 0.05). Among proprietary systems, O3 + RAG achieved 72.9% (Top-1), 85.8% (Top-3), 88.7% (Top-5), and 92.3% (Top-10). Among open-source options, Gemma-3 + RAG provided a strong accuracy–efficiency–privacy balance at 49.4% (Top-1), 71.4% (Top-3), 79.2% (Top-5), and 87.1% (Top-10). Coupling LLMs to a curated neuroradiology knowledge base via RAG markedly increases diagnostic accuracy and reduces the performance gap between open-source and proprietary models, while maintaining rapid, privacy-preserving inference suitable for clinical integration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: