BanglaDiaHallu: Hallucinations of large language models and the effect of guideline-grounded retrieval-augmented generation in Bangla diabetes question answering
Nahid, K.; Anam, M.; Saon, M. T. H.; Any, O. H.; Hassan, K. M. R.; Anwar, M. M.
Show abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly consulted for health advice, but they can produce fluent statements that are false or unsupported, known as hallucinations, and this risk is poorly characterised in low-resource languages such as Bangla. We measured hallucinations of locally deployable open-weight LLMs in Bangla diabetes question answering and tested whether retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounded in Bangladeshs National Guideline on Diabetes Mellitus reduces them. Forty patient questions spanning six clinical sub-domains were each answered twice, under zero-shot prompting, by Qwen3.5-9B, TigerLLM-9B, Qwen3.6-35B-A3B and Gemma-4-26B-A4B, and by BanglaDiaRAG, which adds hybrid dense (BGE-M3) and sparse (BM25) retrieval from a physician-reviewed Bangla guideline knowledge base to Qwen3.5-9B. Two physicians rated the 400 de-identified responses by consensus for medical accuracy, completeness, safety, readability and reliability on a 0-1 scale, and responses with accuracy below 0.70 were classified as hallucinated. Hallucination rates were 2.5% for Gemma-4-26B-A4B, 3.8% for TigerLLM-9B, 22.5% for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B and 77.5% for Qwen3.5-9B. Guideline grounding lowered the rate of Qwen3.5-9B to 11.3% (difference -66.3 percentage points; 95% CI -76.3 to -55.0) and raised every criterion by 0.24 to 0.38 points (Holm-adjusted p < 0.001). BanglaDiaRAG outscored Qwen3.6-35B-A3B on all five criteria and matched or exceeded TigerLLM-9B, but it remained below Gemma-4-26B-A4B in safety, readability and reliability, and its residual errors were specific, confident and potentially harmful. Guideline grounding can turn a weak general-purpose model into a much safer Bangla diabetes assistant, but the choice of base model mattered as much as retrieval and no configuration was free of hallucination, so clinical oversight remains essential before patient-facing use.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Large Language Models Facilitate the Generation of Electronic Health Record Phenotyping Algorithms 94%
- Empowering Personalized Pharmacogenomics with Generative AI Solutions 93%
- Beyond Metrics to Methods: A Scoping Review of Large Language Models for Detection of Social Drivers of Health in Clinical Notes 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making: a mixed methods study 92%
- Utilization of Generative AI-drafted Responses for Managing Patient-Provider Communication 91%
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Determining prescriptions in electronic health care (EHR) data: methods for development of standardised, reproducible drug codelists 90%
- Development and Application of Pharmacological Statin-Associated Muscle Symptoms Phenotyping Algorithms Using Structured and Unstructured Electronic Health Records Data 90%
- Clinical interpretation of machine learning models for prediction of diabetic complications using electronic health records 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- ChatGPT- versus human-generated answers to frequently asked questions about diabetes: a Turing test-inspired survey among employees of a Danish diabetes center 95%
- Clinical code sets and the problem of redundancy in code set repositories 91%
- Protocol For Human Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Clinical Consultations 90%
"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.