Retrieval Quality in Sensitive Maternal Counseling
Abstract
The boundary between useful assistance and an unsupported claim becomes visible when a general paper substituted for individualized assessment. This literature-based conceptual analysis does not report a new experiment. The focal evidence concerns how evidence concerning HIV, pregnancy, and infant feeding should be interpreted in ongoing clinical communication. Retrieval relevance is conditional on a claim and its intended population. A passage can be topically similar yet fail to support the exact inference. Construct source sets with related but ineligible papers and contradictory evidence. Measure whether the generated claim stays within the support actually retrieved. The proposed comparison concerns clinical correspondence, local care context, current records; it would test whether the specific failure scenario is detected without erasing legitimate uncertainty. Implications are restricted to the evidence roles relevant to maternal-infant evidence communication, leaving broader efficacy and deployment claims unresolved.
References
- Yu, Xiao, et al. “HIV, Pregnancy, and Infant Feeding.” JAMA, vol. 336, no. 2, 2026, p. 169, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6033.
- Sang, Yinghao. “Towards Explainable RAG: Interpreting the Influence of Retrieved Passages on Generation.” 2025 4th International Conference on Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Control (RAIIC), IEEE, 2025, pp. 397–400, https://doi.org/10.1109/raiic65850.2025.11170170.
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. National Academies Press, 2019.
- Wilkinson, Mark D., et al. “The FAIR Guiding Principles for Scientific Data Management and Stewardship.” Scientific Data, vol. 3, 2016, article 160018.
- Hernán, Miguel A., and James M. Robins. Causal Inference: What If. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2020.
- Rothman, Kenneth J., Sander Greenland, and Timothy L. Lash. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008.
- Benjamini, Yoav, and Yosef Hochberg. “Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B, vol. 57, no. 1, 1995, pp. 289–300.
- Rajkomar, Alvin, Jeffrey Dean, and Isaac Kohane. “Machine Learning in Medicine.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 380, 2019, pp. 1347–58.
- Wiens, Jenna, et al. “Do No Harm: A Roadmap for Responsible Machine Learning for Health Care.” Nature Medicine, vol. 25, 2019, pp. 1337–40.
- Guo, Chuan, et al. “On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks.” Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2017, pp. 1321–30.
- Robertson, Stephen, and Hugo Zaragoza. “The Probabilistic Relevance Framework: BM25 and Beyond.” Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, vol. 3, no. 4, 2009, pp. 333–89.
- Lewis, Patrick, et al. “Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, 2020, pp. 9459–74.