Back

Precision Grounding: Augmenting Large Language Models with Evidence-Based Databases for Trustworthy Genetic Variant Summarization

Du, X.; Nagy, A.; Oates, M. F.; Wang, Y.; Wang, X.; Plasek, J.; Aronson, S. J.; Lebo, M. S.; Zhou, L.

2025-06-10 health informatics
10.1101/2025.06.09.25329279 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundsAccurate interpretation of genetic variants is critical for precision medicine. While large language models (LLMs) show promise for summarization, they are prone to hallucinations. In this study, we thus propose a novel approach named "precision grounding" that augments LLMs with a query tool that integrated evidence-based, variant-specific information to improve summarization accuracy. MethodsUnlike traditional RAG methods that retrieve information via document embeddings from a vector database, precision grounding uses a domain-specific query tool to access evidence-based databases with unique identifiers. For variant summarization, we developed CATT (https://shorturl.at/pw81X), an open-source tool integrating ClinGen, ClinVar, and GenCC data. Users can query and retrieve curated evidence via Variation IDs to ground LLM outputs. We compared our approach to web grounding-based RAG using 50 expert-selected variants. ResultsGPT-4o was selected due to its good performance on our task during a pilot test. Using GPT-4o, we found our precision grounding approach outperformed web-search grounding, achieving significantly higher accuracy and completeness scores, which were based on a 5-point Likert-Scale of 4.76 (+0.74) and 4.94 (+0.84), respectively. Error analysis revealed that precision grounding reduced clinically significant hallucinations, such as incorrect pathogenicity classification and summarizing the wrong variant. ConclusionPrecision grounding approach outperformed web-search grounding for genetic variant summarization. Our open-source tool, CATT, enables integration of curated, domain-specific knowledge and reduces hallucinations in LLM outputs.

Published in International Journal of Medical Informatics · training set

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.