Integrating Chain‐of‐Thought and Retrieval Augmented Generation Enhances Rare Disease Diagnosis From Clinical Notes
Open accessAbstract
Background: Several studies show that large language models (LLMs) struggle with phenotype‐driven gene prioritization for rare diseases. These studies typically use Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) terms to prompt foundation models such as GPT and LLaMA to predict candidate genes. However, in real‐world settings, foundation models are not optimized for domain‐specific tasks such as clinical diagnosis, yet inputs are unstructured clinical notes rather than standardized terms. How LLMs can be instructed to predict candidate genes or disease diagnosis from unstructured clinical notes remains a major challenge. Methods: We introduce RAG‐driven CoT and CoT‐driven RAG, two methods that combine Chain‐of‐Thought (CoT) and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) to analyze clinical notes. A five‐question CoT protocol mimics expert reasoning, whereas RAG retrieves data from sources such as HPO and OMIM (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man). We evaluated these approaches on rare disease datasets, including 5980 Phenopacket‐derived notes, 255 literature‐based narratives, and two cohorts of 1088 noisy clinical notes from a children's hospital. Results: We found that recent foundation models, including Llama 3.3–70B‐Instruct and DeepSeek‐R1‐Distill‐Llama‐70B, outperformed earlier versions such as Llama 2 and GPT‐3.5. We also showed that RAG‐driven CoT and CoT‐driven RAG both outperform foundation models in candidate gene prioritization from clinical notes; in particular, both methods with DeepSeek backbone resulted in a top‐10 gene accuracy of over 40% on Phenopacket‐derived clinical notes, although performance was lower on noisier hospital clinical notes. RAG‐driven CoT works better for high‐quality notes, where early retrieval can anchor the subsequent reasoning steps in domain‐specific evidence, whereas CoT‐driven RAG has advantage when processing lengthy and noisy notes. Conclusions: Integrating CoT and RAG enhances LLMs' understanding of clinical notes in the context of rare disease diagnosis, and can facilitate various downstream medical tasks.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Chain-of-thought prompting and RAG have been combined to analyse clinical notes for rare-disease diagnosis and candidate-gene prioritization.
“Chain-of-thought prompting and RAG have been combined to analyse clinical notes for rare-disease diagnosis and candidate-gene prioritization (Wang et al. 2026).”
From Who Reviews the Reviewer? A Multi‐Agent LLM Architecture With Meta‐Review Synthesis for Editorial Peer Review (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al. 2026
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
ColBERT: Efficient and Effective Passage Search via Contextualized Late Interaction over BERT
Khattab, O., & Zaharia, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3397271.3401075 · Cited by 1,301 · see citing works
Expansion of the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) knowledge base and resources
Köhler, S., Carmody, L., Vasilevsky, N., Jacobsen, J. O. B., Danis, D., Gourdine, J.-P., Gargano, M., Harris, N. L., Matentzoglu, N., McMurry, J. A., et al. (2019) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gky1105 · Cited by 677 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [1]1. Gargano MA, Matentzoglu N, Coleman B, et al. The Human Phenotype Ontology in 2024: phenotypes around the world. Nucleic Acids Res . Jan 5 2024;52(D1):D1333-d1346. doi:10.1093/nar/gkad1005 · DOI · Paper page
- [2]2. Hamosh A, Scott AF, Amberger JS, Bocchini CA, McKusick VA. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), a knowledgebase of human genes and genetic disorders. Nucleic Acids Res . Jan 1 2005;33(Database issue):D514-7. doi:10.1093/nar/gki033 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ali, Ș., Oprea, S., & Bâra, A. (2026) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.70163
- Authors
- Wang, Z., Wu, D., Nguyen, Q., & Wang, K.
- Affiliations
- Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Kai
- Venue
- Medicine Bulletin
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2026-03
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 167-183
- ISSN
- 3065-2723 (ISSN-L)
- 3065-2731
- OpenAlex
- W7134917080
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 10.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Medicine Bulletin (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (HG013031)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- rare disease diagnosis, chain-of-thought prompting, retrieval-augmented generation, clinical notes, candidate gene prioritization, large language models, Human Phenotype Ontology, OMIM, Phenopackets, DeepSeek, Llama 3.3
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review