FusionGraphRAG: An Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Complex Disease Management in the Elderly
Abstract
1. Introduction
- Adaptive Hierarchical Retrieval: To address the limitations of static retrieval pipelines under varying query complexities, an intent-aware routing controller based on fuzzy logic is proposed to dynamically allocate retrieval depth and reasoning resources according to the semantic complexity and risk profile of user queries, thereby balancing computational efficiency with clinical accuracy.
- Dual-Granularity Collaboration: To mitigate the semantic granularity mismatch between unstructured medical narratives and structured KGs, a dual-granularity agent is designed to align fine-grained medical entities with coarse-grained graph community summaries, enabling coherent semantic integration across micro-level factual evidence and macro-level clinical context.
- Enhanced Safety Interception: To address the lack of semantic verification mechanisms in existing RAG-based medical systems, a DeepSearch agent incorporating a cross-encoder-based contradiction detection module is introduced to proactively identify implicit logical conflicts and high-risk pharmacological interactions during the reasoning process.
2. Related Work
2.1. Evolution and Reliability Bottlenecks of RAG Technology
2.2. GraphRAG and Semantic Granularity Mismatch
2.3. Agent Collaboration and Safety Deficits in Medical Decision-Making
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Framework Overview
- •
- Naive Agent: Rapidly responds to simple factual queries.
- •
- Dual-Granularity Agent (DG-Agent): Resolves semantic granularity issues.
- •
- DeepSearch Agent: Addresses deep reasoning and safety concerns.
3.2. Knowledge Coordinator
3.2.1. Semantic Intent Sentinel
3.2.2. Adaptive Fuzzy Logic Routing
3.3. Dual-Granularity Agent
3.3.1. Micro-Perspective Retrieval for Hybrid Entity Anchoring
- •
- Stage 1: Exact symbolic retrieval via KG. The system executes entity linking on the user query as the primary retrieval priority to map keywords to standardized entity nodes within the KG. Subsequently, the system utilizes the Cypher query language to retrieve direct attributes of these nodes from the graph database. This step enables high-fidelity structured knowledge extraction, reducing probabilistic errors inherent in model generation.
- •
- Stage 2: Semantic vector retrieval as fallback. In the absence of valid results from Stage 1, the system triggers vector retrieval as a fallback mechanism. This phase utilizes the multilingual, multi-granularity pre-trained embedding model BGE-M3 to map the user query into a dense vector. The system performs an Approximate Nearest Neighbor (ANN) search within the vector index, retrieving semantically relevant unstructured document chunks and similar KG entity nodes:
3.3.2. Macro-Perspective Retrieval for Community-Aware Intent Completion
3.3.3. Heterogeneous Knowledge Linearization and Context Fusion
3.4. DeepSearch Agent
3.4.1. LLM-Based Query Decomposition and Dual-Path Entity-Semantic Retrieval
3.4.2. Polypharmacy Semantic Contradiction Detection Based on Structured Isolation
- Implicit Component Overlap: The system traverses graph data to identify drug combinations with distinct names mapping to the same active ingredient node (e.g., Tylenol and Yanlixiao Tablets both contain Acetaminophen). Component attribution relationships from the graph convert into natural language premises with contradictory hypotheses suggesting concurrent use. This mechanism enables the model to identify risks of chemical component superposition beyond commercial drug names.
- Disease-Specific Contraindication: The system utilizes contraindication relationships in the graph and caution/prohibited fields in drug package inserts to extract exclusion links between drug entities and specific disease nodes (e.g., Hypertension, Glaucoma). The system constructs erroneous recommendation samples that omit patient medical history to reinforce model sensitivity to clinical contraindication conditions.
- Pharmacological Antagonism: The system extracts attribute pairs with opposing functional semantics from pharmacological attribute nodes within the graph (e.g., potent anticoagulation versus hemostasis/coagulation). The retrieval of drug combinations with opposing pharmacodynamic mechanisms enables the construction of negative samples that omit pharmacological antagonism.
3.4.3. Visualization of Reasoning Paths and Full-Link Evidence Tracing
4. Results
4.1. Experimental Setup
4.1.1. Data Acquisition and Knowledge Base Construction
4.1.2. Benchmark Datasets
- •
- Implicit Component Overlap (35%): Targeting implicit duplication risks where distinct brand names share active ingredients (e.g., Xiaoke Pills containing Glibenclamide), aiming to prevent adverse events caused by cumulative dosage and overdose.
- •
- Pharmacological Antagonism (25%): Covering drug pairs with opposing mechanisms (e.g., anticoagulants vs. hemostatics), which require logical deduction beyond semantic similarity.
- •
- Specific Population Contraindications (40%): Focusing on risks exacerbated by geriatric physiology (e.g., contraindication of Anticholinergic drugs in elderly patients with prostatic hyperplasia).
- •
- Demographic characteristics: Inclusion criteria require patients aged 60 years or older with confirmed diagnoses of two or more chronic comorbidities, such as hypertension complicated by diabetes.
- •
- Polypharmacy scenarios: Consultation records comprise a medication list involving a total drug count N 2 to assess the resolution of complex pharmacological interactions.
- •
- Multimodal context: Records must include unstructured chief complaints, medical history, and lifestyle descriptions, such as dietary habits and alcohol consumption history, to evaluate the system’s recall effectiveness for long-tail lifestyle management queries.
- •
- Simple Fact: This subset involves single-drug attribute queries, such as dosage and administration information for metformin, and primarily evaluates the system’s accuracy in basic information retrieval.
- •
- Inference: This subset requires multi-hop reasoning that integrates patient medical history and lifestyle context, such as evaluating medication suitability for a patient with gout following dietary intake of high-purine foods. It assesses the DG-Agent’s capability to perform cross-contextual and multi-source reasoning.
- •
- High-Risk Conflict: This subset includes samples involving implicit component overlap, severe DDIs, or contraindication risks, such as the concurrent use of warfarin with compound Danshen preparations. This category evaluates the DeepSearch agent’s ability to intercept safety-critical risks. Cases in which the system fails to identify potential hazards or prevent unsafe recommendations are recorded as critical safety breaches.
4.2. Main Results and Performance Analysis
4.2.1. Retrieval Performance Comparison
4.2.2. Generation Quality and Safety Evaluation
- •
- Safety Recall (71.7%): FusionGraphRAG achieved a Safety Recall of 71.7%, representing the interception of approximately 70% of high-stakes pharmacological conflicts. Critically, this performance outperforms the advanced MedGraphRAG baseline (65.2%) by an absolute margin of +6.5 percentage points. This gap suggests differences in how retrieved evidence is operationalized during generation. MedGraphRAG primarily mitigates explicit conflicts via reranking, while implicit component-level contradictions remain more challenging under this mechanism. The proposed graph-based verification provides an additional check for such cases.
- •
- Safety F1 (0.699): A composite F1-score of 0.699 indicates a balance between safety and response utility. Although our strict detection strategy results in a slightly lower Precision (0.682) compared to MedGraphRAG (0.698), the system yields the highest overall F1-score. The system exhibits a conservative profile, aligning with medical risk control principles that prioritize sensitivity (Recall) over specificity to maximize patient safety in geriatric scenarios.
- •
- Generation Quality: G-Eval results indicate that FusionGraphRAG achieves an average score of 3.91. While slightly trailing the highly fluent MedGraphRAG (3.95) due to the constraints of safety verification, our score consistently exceeds the GPT-4 zero-shot baseline (3.85). When considered alongside a BERTScore of 0.715, these results suggest that the framework successfully preserves the linguistic coherence of LLMs while enforcing necessary structured knowledge constraints to prevent hallucinations.
4.3. Ablation Study
4.3.1. Efficiency Hedging via Adaptive Routing
4.3.2. Gains from Dual-Granularity Semantic Alignment
4.3.3. Safety Gains via Semantic Consistency Verification
5. Discussion
5.1. Clinical Efficacy and Pharmacological Scope
5.2. Deployment Feasibility and System Evolution
5.3. Future Work: System Evolution and Maintenance
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| RAG | Retrieval-Augmented Generation |
| DG | Dual-Granularity |
| PCM | Proprietary Chinese Medicine |
| LLM | Large Language Model |
| NER | Named Entity Recognition |
| DDI | Drug–Drug Interaction |
| KG | Knowledge Graph |
| AFIS | Adaptive Fuzzy Inference System |
| CoG | Center of Gravity |
| MRR | Mean Reciprocal Rank |
| NLI | Natural Language Inference |
References
- World Health Organization. WHO Clinical Consortium on Healthy Ageing 2023: Meeting Report, Geneva, Switzerland, 5–7 December 2023; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Morin, L.; Johnell, K.; Laroche, M.L.; Fastbom, J.; Wastesson, J.W. The epidemiology of polypharmacy in older adults: Register-based prospective cohort study. Clin. Epidemiol. 2018, 10, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennie, M.; Santa-Ana-Tellez, Y.; Galistiani, G.F.; Trehony, J.; Despres, J.; Jouaville, L.S.; Poluzzi, E.; Morin, L.; Schubert, I.; MacBride-Stewart, S.; et al. The prevalence of polypharmacy in older Europeans: A multi-national database study of general practitioner prescribing. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2024, 90, 2124–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbasian, M.; Sarbazi, E.; Allahyari, A.; Vaez, H. Polypharmacy in older adults. Int. J. Drug Res. Clin. Pract. 2024, 2, e23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, T.Y.K. Interaction between warfarin and danshen (Salvia miltiorrhiza). Ann. Pharmacother. 2001, 35, 501–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, X.; Fan, X.; Jiang, H.; Zhao, L.; Huang, X.; Zhang, T.; Li, Y. Herb-drug interactions in oncology: Mechanisms and risk prediction. Chin. Med. 2025, 20, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.C.; Zhao, M.; Song, S. Online health information seeking behaviors among older adults: Systematic scoping review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022, 24, e34790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chang, L.; Li, W.; Xin, X.; Wang, J. Strategies for assessing health information credibility among older social media users in China: A qualitative study. Health Commun. 2024, 39, 2767–2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vivion, M.; Reid, V.; Dubé, E.; Gagneur, A.; Farrands, A.; Lemaire, C.; Baron, G.; Guay, M. How older adults manage misinformation and information overload: Qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2024, 24, 871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.; Dong, Q.; Sun, Q.; Dong, H.; Bu, X.; Wang, Y.; Su, Y.; Liu, C. Trajectories and influencing factors of online health information–seeking behaviors among community-dwelling older adults: Longitudinal mixed methods study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2025, 27, e77549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Neha, F.; Bhati, D.; Shukla, D.K. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review. AI 2025, 6, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amugongo, L.M.; Mascheroni, P.; Brooks, S.; Doering, S.; Seidel, J. Retrieval augmented generation for large language models in healthcare: A systematic review. PLoS Digit. Health 2025, 4, e0000877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miao, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Luo, Y.; Wang, H.; Wu, Y. Improving large language model applications in medical and nursing domains with retrieval-augmented generation: Scoping review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2025, 27, e80557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Abo El-Enen, M.; Saad, S.; Nazmy, T. A survey on retrieval-augmented generation models for healthcare applications. Neural Comput. Appl. 2025, 37, 28191–28267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, R.; Ning, Y.; Keppo, E.; Ngiam, K.Y.; Bibault, J.E.; Feng, M. Retrieval-augmented generation for generative artificial intelligence in health care. npj Health Syst. 2025, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, S.; Baek, J.; Cho, S.; Hwang, S.J.; Park, J.C. Adaptive-RAG: Learning to Adapt Retrieval-Augmented Generation to Query Complexity. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), Mexico City, Mexico, 16–21 June 2024; pp. 7015–7033. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Zhang, W.; Yang, Y.; Huang, W.C.; Wu, Y.; Luo, J.; Bei, Y.; Zou, H.P.; Luo, X.; Zhao, Y.; et al. A Survey of RAG-Reasoning Systems in Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, Suzhou, China, 4–9 November 2025; pp. 12120–12145. [Google Scholar]
- Kozhipuram, V.A.; Shailendra, S.; Kadel, R. Retrieval-Augmented Generation vs. baseline LLMs: A Multi-metric evaluation for knowledge-intensive content. Information 2025, 16, 766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, Z.; Lee, N.; Frieske, R.; Yu, T.; Su, D.; Xu, Y.; Ishii, E.; Bang, Y.J.; Madotto, A.; Fung, P. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Comput. Surv. 2023, 55, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, L.; Yu, W.; Ma, W.; Zhong, W.; Feng, Z.; Wang, H.; Chen, Q.; Peng, W.; Feng, X.; Qin, B.; et al. A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 2025, 43, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyu, Q.; Havaldar, S.; Stein, A.; Zhang, L.; Rao, S.; Wong, E.; Sayeed, A.; Callison-Burch, C. Faithful chain-of-thought reasoning. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2301.13379. [Google Scholar]
- Lewis, P.; Perez, E.; Piktus, A.; Petroni, F.; Karpukhin, V.; Goyal, N.; Küttler, H.; Lewis, M.; Yih, W.; Rocktäschel, T.; et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 6–12 December 2020; pp. 9459–9474. [Google Scholar]
- Karpukhin, V.; Oguz, B.; Min, S.; Lewis, P.; Ledgi, L.; Wu, S.; Yih, W.T. Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Online, 16–20 November 2020; pp. 6769–6781. [Google Scholar]
- Thakur, N.; Reimers, N.; Rücklé, A.; Srivastava, A.; Gurevych, I. BEIR: A Heterogenous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Models. arXiv 2021, arXiv:arXiv:2104.08663. [Google Scholar]
- Yasunaga, M.; Bosselut, A.; Ren, H.; Zhang, X.; Manning, C.D.; Liang, P.; Leskovec, J. Deep Bidirectional Language-Knowledge Graph Pretraining. In Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2022), New Orleans, LA, USA, 28 November–9 December 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Edge, D.; Trinh, H.; Cheng, N.; Bradley, J.; Chao, A.; Mody, A.; Truitt, S.; Larson, J. From local to global: A graph RAG approach to query-focused summarization. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2404.16130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.; Liu, X.; Yue, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, M.; Guo, Q.; Hu, X.; Tang, X.; Zhang, T.; et al. Survey on factuality in large language models. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2310.07521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Traag, V.A.; Waltman, L.; van Eck, N.J. From Louvain to Leiden: Guaranteeing well-connected communities. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 5233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.K.; Wang, H.H. An innovative RAG framework for stage-specific knowledge translation. Biomimetics 2025, 10, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yao, S.; Zhao, J.; Yu, D.; Du, N.; Shafran, I.; Narasimhan, K.; Cao, Y. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Learning Representations, Kigali, Rwanda, 1–5 May 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Schick, T.; Dwivedi-Yu, J.; Dessi, R.; Raileanu, R.; Lomeli, M.; Hambro, E.; Zettlemoyer, L.; Cancedda, N.; Scialom, T. Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, New Orleans, LA, USA, 10–16 December 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Singhal, K.; Tu, T.; Gottweis, J.; Sayres, R.; Wulczyn, E.; Amin, M.; Hou, L.; Clark, K.; Pfohl, S.R.; Cole-Lewis, H.; et al. Toward expert-level medical question answering with large language models. Nat. Med. 2025, 31, 943–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mamdani, E.H.; Assilian, S. An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 1975, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Yoon, W.; Kim, S.; Kim, D.; Kim, S.; So, C.H.; Kang, J. BioBERT: A pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics 2020, 36, 1234–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houlsby, N.; Giurgiu, A.; Jastrzebski, S.; Brunskill, B.; Choromanski, K.; Silva, R.; von Mattern, F.; Gelly, S. Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLP. In Proceedings of the 36 th International Conference on Machine Learning, Long Beach, CA, USA, 9–15 June 2019; pp. 2790–2799. [Google Scholar]
- Howard, J.; Ruder, S. Universal Language Model Fine-Tuning for Text Classification. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Long Papers), Melbourne, Australia, 15–20 July 2018; pp. 328–339. [Google Scholar]
- Szegedy, C.; Vanhoucke, V.; Ioffe, S.; Shlens, J.; Wojna, Z. Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 27–30 June 2016; pp. 2818–2826. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; Li, J.; Chen, S.; Zhu, Y.; Wu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Xu, X.; Chen, J.; Fu, J.; Wan, X.; et al. Huatuo-26M, a Large-scale Chinese Medical QA Dataset. In Proceedings of the Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 29 April–4 May 2025; pp. 3828–3848. [Google Scholar]
- He, X.; Tian, Y.; Sun, Y.; Chawla, N.V.; Laurent, T.; LeCun, Y.; Bresson, X.; Hooi, B. G-Retriever: Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Textual Graph Understanding and Question Answering. In Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (NeurIPS 2024), Vancouver, BC, Canada, 9–15 December 2024; pp. 132876–132907. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Zhu, J.; Qi, Y.; Chen, J.; Xu, M.; Menolascina, F.; Jin, Y.; Grau, V. Medical Graph RAG: Evidence-based Medical Large Language Model via Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Vienna, Austria, 27 July–1 August 2025; pp. 28443–28467. [Google Scholar]









| Sample Type | Premise/Evidence | Hypothesis/Generated Advice | Label |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implicit Component Overlap | [Fact] Tylenol contains Acetaminophen; Yanlixiao contains Acetaminophen. | Tylenol and Yanlixiao can be co-administered without risk of component overlap. | Contradiction |
| Pharmacological Antagonism | [Fact] Warfarin: Anticoagulant; Sanqi Tablets: Hemostasis. | Concurrent use of Warfarin and Sanqi Tablets does not cause pharmacological antagonism. | Contradiction |
| Population Contraindication | [Fact] Levofloxacin: Risk of tendon rupture increases in elderly; use with caution. | Levofloxacin is suitable for patients over 75 years old. | Contradiction |
| No-Conflict/Entailment | [Fact] Amlodipine has no significant interaction with Aspirin. | The combination of Amlodipine and Aspirin is safe. | Entailment |
| Metric | Value/Distribution |
|---|---|
| Total Samples | 800 |
| Age | Mean: 71.4 years (Range: 60–92) |
| Medications per Case | Mean: 3.1 (Max: 6) |
| Top 3 Comorbidities | Hypertension (65.2%), Diabetes (41.8%), CHD (34.5%) |
| Multimorbidity Rate | 2 chronic conditions) |
| Model | Subset | Hit Rate@5 | Hit Rate@10 | MRR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Naive RAG (Vector Only) | Simple Fact | 0.599 | 0.704 | 0.462 |
| Inference | 0.363 | 0.485 | 0.315 | |
| High-Risk | 0.443 | 0.569 | 0.387 | |
| GraphRAG (Graph Only) | Simple Fact | 0.642 | 0.738 | 0.505 |
| Inference | 0.452 | 0.561 | 0.389 | |
| High-Risk | 0.491 | 0.612 | 0.435 | |
| G-Retriever (KG-Expand) | Simple Fact | 0.715 | 0.801 | 0.512 |
| Inference | 0.485 | 0.584 | 0.395 | |
| High-Risk | 0.512 | 0.635 | 0.448 | |
| MedGraphRAG (KG-Rerank) | Simple Fact | 0.688 | 0.765 | 0.546 |
| Inference | 0.479 | 0.605 | 0.408 | |
| High-Risk | 0.535 | 0.658 | 0.465 | |
| FusionGraphRAG (Ours) | Simple Fact | 0.684 | 0.772 | 0.554 |
| Inference | 0.497 | 0.616 | 0.412 | |
| High-Risk | 0.548 | 0.673 | 0.476 |
| Model | BERTScore | G-Eval (1–5) | Safety Precision | Safety Recall (CDR) | Safety F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-4 (Zero-shot) | 0.625 | 3.85 | 0.554 | 0.425 | 0.481 |
| Naive RAG | 0.658 | 3.48 | 0.383 | 0.355 | 0.369 |
| GraphRAG | 0.691 | 3.77 | 0.616 | 0.581 | 0.598 |
| G-Retriever | 0.702 | 3.82 | 0.605 | 0.618 | 0.611 |
| MedGraphRAG | 0.720 | 3.95 | 0.698 | 0.652 | 0.674 |
| FusionGraphRAG (Ours) | 0.715 | 3.91 | 0.682 | 0.717 | 0.699 |
| No. | Configuration | F1-Score | Safety Recall (CDR) | Avg Latency (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Naive RAG (Baseline) | 0.369 | 35.5% | 2.1 |
| 2 | +Static KG (No Routing) | 0.621 | 58.1% | 15.8 |
| 3 | +AFIS Routing (M1) | 0.635 | 59.2% | 8.5 |
| 4 | +DG-Agent (M2) | 0.682 | 62.5% | 9.2 |
| 5 | Full Model (+NLI, M3) | 0.699 | 71.7% | 12.4 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Lin, S.; Shao, S.; Liu, X.; Su, H. FusionGraphRAG: An Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Complex Disease Management in the Elderly. Information 2026, 17, 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/info17020138
Lin S, Shao S, Liu X, Su H. FusionGraphRAG: An Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Complex Disease Management in the Elderly. Information. 2026; 17(2):138. https://doi.org/10.3390/info17020138
Chicago/Turabian StyleLin, Shaofu, Shengze Shao, Xiliang Liu, and Haoru Su. 2026. "FusionGraphRAG: An Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Complex Disease Management in the Elderly" Information 17, no. 2: 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/info17020138
APA StyleLin, S., Shao, S., Liu, X., & Su, H. (2026). FusionGraphRAG: An Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Complex Disease Management in the Elderly. Information, 17(2), 138. https://doi.org/10.3390/info17020138

