Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Integrating Chain-of-Thought and Retrieval Augmented Generation Enhances Rare Disease Diagnosis from Clinical Notes

Zhanliang Wang, Da Wu, Quan Nguyen, Kai Wang · Mar 15, 2025 · Citations: 0

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Low

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Signal confidence: 0.45

Abstract

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 like GPT and LLaMA to predict candidate genes. However, in real-world settings, foundation models are not optimized for domain-specific tasks like 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, while RAG retrieves data from sources like HPO and OMIM (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man). We evaluated these approaches on rare disease datasets, including 5,980 Phenopacket-derived notes, 255 literature-based narratives, and 220 in-house clinical notes from Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia. Results: We found that recent foundations 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. RAG-driven CoT works better for high-quality notes, where early retrieval can anchor the subsequent reasoning steps in domain-specific evidence, while CoT-driven RAG has advantage when processing lengthy and noisy notes.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.45 (below strong-reference threshold).

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

5/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Background: Several studies show that large language models (LLMs) struggle with phenotype-driven gene prioritization for rare diseases.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Background: Several studies show that large language models (LLMs) struggle with phenotype-driven gene prioritization for rare diseases.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Background: Several studies show that large language models (LLMs) struggle with phenotype-driven gene prioritization for rare diseases.

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

Retrieval

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: 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.

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Helpful for staffing comparability.

Evidence snippet: A five-question CoT protocol mimics expert reasoning, while RAG retrieves data from sources like HPO and OMIM (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man).

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: Medicine
  • Signal basis: Structured extraction plus abstract evidence.

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Signal confidence: 0.45
  • Known cautions: low_signal, possible_false_positive

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

Retrieval

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Background: Several studies show that large language models (LLMs) struggle with phenotype-driven gene prioritization for rare diseases.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • 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 like GPT and LLaMA to predict candidate genes.
  • However, in real-world settings, foundation models are not optimized for domain-specific tasks like clinical diagnosis, yet inputs are unstructured clinical notes rather than standardized terms.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • These studies typically use Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) terms to prompt foundation models like GPT and LLaMA to predict candidate genes.
  • 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.
  • 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%…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • These studies typically use Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) terms to prompt foundation models like GPT and LLaMA to predict candidate genes.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Retrieval

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.