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

Objectives: Large 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 & Methods: We 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). Results: We 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. Discussion: Besides 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. Conclusions: Our 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.