Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

RASC+: Retrieval-Constrained LLM Adjudication for Clinical Value Set Authoring

Sumit Mukherjee · Jun 22, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the exact study setup in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Clinical value sets define the standardized terminology codes used in quality measurement, phenotyping, cohort construction, and clinical decision support. The recently introduced Retrieval-Augmented Set Completion (RASC) benchmark showed that direct zero-shot large language model (LLM) generation is poorly suited to this task: clinical code systems are large, version-controlled, and not reliably memorized by language models. We study a stage-wise alternative in which candidate-pool construction is optimized for recall and a constrained LLM adjudicator is optimized for candidate selection. On the full 3,744-value-set RASC test split, Qwen3-based retrieval with vocabulary-aware expansion and code-display rescue retrieval increases candidate-pool recall from the original RASC retrieval baseline of 0.553 to 0.730; on the held-out-publisher stratum, pool recall is 0.655. The higher-recall pool alone is not sufficient: applying the original SAPBert cross-encoder to this expanded pool gives full-test macro F1 of 0.287 and held-out-publisher macro F1 of 0.233. Replacing the stage-2 selector with blinded GPT-5 adjudication over the same pool increases full-test macro F1 to 0.549 and held-out-publisher macro F1 to 0.533. These results show that retrieval-constrained LLM adjudication can substantially improve value set completion while preserving the safety constraint that all returned codes must come from an auditable candidate pool.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

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 secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

15/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Clinical value sets define the standardized terminology codes used in quality measurement, phenotyping, cohort construction, and clinical decision support."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Clinical value sets define the standardized terminology codes used in quality measurement, phenotyping, cohort construction, and clinical decision support."

Quality Controls

partial

Adjudication

Calibration/adjudication style controls detected.

"Replacing the stage-2 selector with blinded GPT-5 adjudication over the same pool increases full-test macro F1 to 0.549 and held-out-publisher macro F1 to 0.533."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Clinical value sets define the standardized terminology codes used in quality measurement, phenotyping, cohort construction, and clinical decision support."

Reported Metrics

partial

F1, F1 macro, Recall

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"We study a stage-wise alternative in which candidate-pool construction is optimized for recall and a constrained LLM adjudicator is optimized for candidate selection."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Medicine, Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Adjudication
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

f1f1 macrorecall

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Clinical value sets define the standardized terminology codes used in quality measurement, phenotyping, cohort construction, and clinical decision support.

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

Key Takeaways

  • Clinical value sets define the standardized terminology codes used in quality measurement, phenotyping, cohort construction, and clinical decision support.
  • The recently introduced Retrieval-Augmented Set Completion (RASC) benchmark showed that direct zero-shot large language model (LLM) generation is poorly suited to this task: clinical code systems are large, version-controlled, and not reliably memorized by language models.
  • We study a stage-wise alternative in which candidate-pool construction is optimized for recall and a constrained LLM adjudicator is optimized for candidate selection.

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.

Recommended Queries

F1

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • The recently introduced Retrieval-Augmented Set Completion (RASC) benchmark showed that direct zero-shot large language model (LLM) generation is poorly suited to this task: clinical code systems are large, version-controlled, and not…
  • The higher-recall pool alone is not sufficient: applying the original SAPBert cross-encoder to this expanded pool gives full-test macro F1 of 0.287 and held-out-publisher macro F1 of 0.233.
  • These results show that retrieval-constrained LLM adjudication can substantially improve value set completion while preserving the safety constraint that all returned codes must come from an auditable candidate pool.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • The recently introduced Retrieval-Augmented Set Completion (RASC) benchmark showed that direct zero-shot large language model (LLM) generation is poorly suited to this task: clinical code systems are large, version-controlled, and not…
  • These results show that retrieval-constrained LLM adjudication can substantially improve value set completion while preserving the safety constraint that all returned codes must come from an auditable candidate pool.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Pass: Quality control reporting appears

    Detected: Adjudication

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1, f1 macro, recall

Related Papers

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