Cited by 2Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

NRAG: A Knowledge-Enhanced LLM Framework for Interpretable Neurosurgical Disease Diagnosis in Outpatient and Emergency Settings

Open access
Tian, Haoyu, Liu, Yiming, Dai, Xinyu, Dong, Xin, Yu, Jian, Wei, Wei, Wang, Boran, Zhou, Xuezhong·2026·IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance in numerous domains, yet their clinical deployment faces critical barriers, particularly insufficient reasoning in complex scenarios and limited interpretability. These challenges are exacerbated in neurosurgical diagnosis for outpatient and emergency settings, where time-sensitive decision-making, fragmented data, and complex comorbidities render conventional free-text-based modeling approaches unreliable. To address the limitations of existing LLMs in medical auxiliary diagnosis, particularly in interpretability and predictive performance, this study proposed NRAG, an auxiliary diagnosis method that combines LLMs with knowledge graphs (KGs). It extracts symptom descriptions from clinical records and performs personalized retrieval of associated paths in KG, and supplements potential patient symptoms to optimize the diagnosis model. Comparative experiments involving multiple general-domain and medical-domain LLMs, along with case studies, were conducted to validate the NRAG's effectiveness. Experimental results demonstrate that integrating KG significantly improves diagnosis accuracy, achieving an F1-score of 0.8150. It also substantially improves model interpretability and performs excellently in expert evaluations. Ablation studies and comparative experiments with other general-domain and medical-domain LLMs confirm the superior performance of the proposed NRAG. NRAG effectively supplements missing symptom information and provides knowledge-path-based evidence for diagnosis results, while improving the precision and interpretability of intelligent diagnosis. Furthermore, this approach sets the foundation for intelligent diagnoses in neurosurgery while providing a methodological framework for the integration of in-depth clinical data mining with medical knowledge base resources.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/jbhi.2025.3638444

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 2

Metadata

Authors
Tian, H., Liu, Y., Dai, X., Dong, X., Yu, J., Wei, W., Wang, B., & Zhou, X.
Affiliations
  • Beijing Jiaotong University (CN)
  • Capital Medical University (CN)
  • University of Science and Technology Beijing (CN)
Venue
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
Published
2026
Volume
PP
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 2168-2194 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-2208
OpenAlex
W4416798235
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
large language models, knowledge graphs, neurosurgical diagnosis, interpretable diagnosis, auxiliary diagnosis, symptom extraction, clinical decision support

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