Back

Limits of Single-Pass Retrieval-Augmented Generation for AI-Powered Cancer Care Navigation: A Comparison of Retrieval Strategies

Hasan, E.; Zhang, Y.; Cook, O.; Loe, A.; Sha, M.; T'ien, L.; Ng, M.; Rauscher, C.; Raman, S.; Bender, J. L.; Ng, R. T.; Bates, A.; Nunez, J.-J.

2026-09-04 health informatics
10.64898/2026.08.31.26361774 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: People affected by cancer often face difficulty finding relevant clinical, psychological, and practical support services. AI-powered navigation assistants may improve access to these resources, but their retrieval performance must be reliable. Objective: To develop a single-pass retrieval-augmented generation assistant for cancer-care navigation and compare the retrieval strategies, including their robustness to reworded questions. Methods: We created a database of 853 cancer-support resources reviewed by librarians, clinicians, researchers, and patient partners. We evaluated the system using 100 questions derived from questions submitted by patients. We compared keyword-based, semantic, and hybrid retrieval using Precision@K, Hit@K, and nDCG@K. The best-performing configuration was then tested using semantically equivalent rewordings of the original questions. Results: Keyword-based retrieval performed poorly, achieving a P@1 of 25.0% and Hit@5 of 43.0%. Semantic retrieval improved these results to 58.0% and 86.0%, respectively. The best hybrid configuration achieved a P@1 of 64.0%, Hit@5 of 90.0%, and nDCG@5 of 51.0%. Performance remained relatively stable when the questions were reworded, with a P@1 of 61.0%, Hit@5 of 88.0%, and nDCG@5 of 46.1%. Conclusions: Hybrid retrieval performed best and remained relatively stable when questions were reworded. However, its limited ability to rank a relevant resource first highlights the limitations of single-pass retrieval for patient-facing cancer navigation. Future work will explore metadata filtering and a multi-agent architecture to improve retrieval reliability.

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.