Abstract
Background Large language models show promise for clinical decision support, yet their propensity for hallucination—generating plausible but unsupported claims—poses sub-stantial patient safety risks. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is widely assumed to mitigate this problem by grounding outputs in retrieved documents, but this assumption remains inadequately tested in clinical contexts where information density, temporal complexity, and safety stakes are uniquely high.
Methods We developed a system that compiles heterogeneous patient data (electronic health records, wearables, genomics, imaging reports) into structured, machine-readable artifacts with explicit provenance tracking across seven clinical domains. We evaluated four conditions: baseline LLM (C0), RAG over raw clinical text (C1), artifact-augmented single-pass generation (C2), and artifact-augmented multi-step agent workflow with verification (C3). Using 100 synthetic patient vignettes evaluated across 3 random seeds (N = 300 per condition, 1,200 total), we measured unsupported claim rates, factual accuracy, temporal consistency, contraindication detection, and clinical safety metrics using GPT-4o-mini with physician-adjudicated safety review.
Results RAG substantially increased hallucination: unsupported claim rates rose from 5.0% (95% CI: 3.8–6.4%) at baseline to 43.6% (95% CI: 40.1–47.2%) with retrieval—an 8.7-fold increase (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 2.31). Structured artifacts reduced unsupported claims to 8.4% (95% CI: 6.7–10.3%) in single-pass generation, a 40% relative reduction versus baseline (p = 0.02, d = 0.48). The agent workflow achieved 21.1% unsupported claims with the lowest contraindication miss rate (0.04) and highest clinician utility scores. Ablation analysis revealed that citation requirements and constraint checking contributed most to safety improvements.
Conclusions Contrary to prevailing assumptions, RAG increases rather than decreases hallucination in clinical text generation. Structured representation with explicit provenance offers a more effective approach to grounding LLM outputs in verifiable patient data. We propose an information-theoretic framework explaining why representation quality determines the ceiling on factual reliability, while agentic verification affects uncertainty handling and safety constraint enforcement.
Competing Interest Statement
JS, AC, and MV are employees of Certuma, which develops clinical AI systems including components evaluated in this paper. The evaluation compared general methodological approaches (raw vs. structured representation, with and without retrieval and agent workflows) rather than benchmarking proprietary products. No external funding was received for this study.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any external funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are synthetic. Synthetic vignette specifications, artifact schema, and evaluation code will be made available in a public repository upon publication. No real patient data was used in this study.
Data Availability
Synthetic vignette specifications and evaluation code will be made available in a public repository upon publication. The artifact schema specification is provided in Appendix A. Real patient data was not used in this study.
