Large language models and retrieval augmented generation for complex clinical codelists: evaluating performance and assessing failure modes

ObjectivesLarge language models (LLMs) have shown promise in creating clinical codelists for research purposes, a time-consuming task requiring expert domain knowledge. Here, we evaluate the performance and assess failure modes of a retrieval augmented generation (RAG) approach to creating clinical codelists for the large and complex medical terminology used by the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Materials & MethodsWe set up a RAG system using a database of word embeddings of the medical terminology that we created using a general-purpose word embedding model (gemini-embedding). We developed 7 reference codelists presenting different challenges and tagged required and optional codes. We ran 168 evaluations (7 codelists, 2 different database subsets, 4 models, 3 epochs each). Scoring was based on the omission of required codes, and inclusion of irrelevant codes. We used model-grading (i.e., grading by another LLM with the reference codelists provided as context) to evaluate the output codelists (a score of 0% being all incorrect and 100% being all correct). ResultsWe saw varying accuracy across models and codelists, with Gemini 3 Pro (Score 43%) generally performing better than Claude Sonnet 4.6 (36%), Gemini 3 Flash, and OpenAI GPT 5.2 performing worst (14%). Models performed better with shorter target codelists (e.g., Eosinophilic esophagitis with four codes, and Hidradenitis suppurativa with 14 codes). For example, all models consistently failed to produce a complete Wrist fracture codelist (with 214 required codes). We further present evaluation summaries, and failure mode evaluations produced by parsing LLM chat logs. DiscussionBesides demonstrating that a single-shot RAG approach is currently not suitable for codelist generation, we demonstrate failure modes including hallucinations, retrieval failures and generation failures where retrieved codes are not used. ConclusionsOur findings suggest that while RAG systems using current frontier LLMs may create correct clinical codelists in some cases, they still struggle with large and complex terminologies and codelists with a large number of codes. The failure mode we highlight can inform the creation of future workflows to avoid failures.