The DOI matches its Crossref record.
NRAG: A Knowledge-Enhanced LLM Framework for Interpretable Neurosurgical Disease Diagnosis in Outpatient and Emergency Settings
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Some explanations cite specific, retrievable evidence, e.g. RAG-grounded source citations or knowledge-graph paths, enabling independent verification . This characterizes the RAG-grounded approaches in our review [63, 87,91,92,94,99].”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [87]
In the citing paper
“A minority of studies engaged clinicians to evaluate explanations [67,83,87,102,104], while most relied entirely on automated metrics or proxies.”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [87]
In the citing paper
“Twelve studies (17.4%) engaged healthcare professionals to evaluate generated explanations”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [87]
In the citing paper
“This is particularly consequential given the growing prominence of Chinese-language medical LLMs and knowledge graph approaches, as well as the identified importance of models such as Qwen, DeepSeek, and ChatGLM in our reviewed studies [78,87,99].”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [87]
In the citing paper
“This is particularly consequential given the growing prominence of Chinese-language medical LLMs and knowledge graph approaches, as well as the identified importance of models such as Qwen, DeepSeek, and ChatGLM in our reviewed studies [78,87,99].”
From Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [87]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Explainability of decoder-only clinical large language models: A scoping review
Mishra, N., Abu-Hanna, A., & Calixto, I. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.artmed.2026.103501
Visvanathan, P., Zaid, A. H. A. A., Krishna, B. M., R, D. K., Rao, M., & Kumar, A. K. (2026) · doi:10.1109/icstem68144.2026.11735605
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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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