Back

OncoGenRAG: Evidence-Grounded Retrieval and BioBERT Classification for Precision Oncology Variant Interpretation

Arif, A.; Filho, J. V. d. S.

2026-08-22 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.08.20.746121 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The increasing use of tumor sequencing has intensified the need for fast, traceable interpretation of genomic variants. General-purpose large language models can produce fluent answers, but unsupported statements, weak provenance, and stale knowledge limit their suitability for clinical genomics. We developed OncoGenRAG, a research framework that combines a parameter-efficiently fine-tuned BioBERT classifier with an entity-aware retrieval system over a curated, multi-source oncology knowledge base. The reported knowledge base contains 933 harmonized records derived from CIViC, ClinVar/dbSNP, Open Targets, UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot, Ensembl Variation, and linked PubMed literature. The classifier assigns one of five labels: Pathogenic, Likely Pathogenic, Variant of Uncertain Significance, Benign, or Oncogenic; the retrieval component ranks evidence records using subword TF-IDF similarity and explicit gene, variant, and cancer-type matches. A rejection rule suppresses answers when retrieval support is below a prespecified threshold. In the authors held-out evaluation, the classifier achieved 92.40% accuracy, 93.15% weighted precision, 92.40% weighted recall, and 92.65% weighted F1 score. In a separate benchmark of 100 clinical-style queries, OncoGenRAG achieved reported Precision@1 of 94.5%, Precision@3 of 96.8%, and 100% database grounding. No hallucinated answer was observed under the study operational definition, compared with a 41.0% no-hallucination rate for the ungrounded baseline. These results should be interpreted as internal validation rather than proof of universal safety because query construction, annotator agreement, class-specific performance, calibration, and external validation data were not available for independent analysis. OncoGenRAG provides a transparent design for evidence retrieval and abstention, but it is a research prototype and must not be used to select treatment without expert review.

Matching journals

The top 7 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.