Evaluating Large Language Models for Evidence-Based Clinical Question Answering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10843v1
• Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2025 15:03:34 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Large Language Models for Evidence-Based Clinical Question Answering
• Authors: Can Wang, Yiqun Chen,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial progress in biomedical and clinical applications.<n>We curate a benchmark drawing from Cochrane systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.<n>We observe consistent performance patterns across sources and clinical domains.
• Score: 4.101088122511548
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial progress in biomedical and clinical applications, motivating rigorous evaluation of their ability to answer nuanced, evidence-based questions. We curate a multi-source benchmark drawing from Cochrane systematic reviews and clinical guidelines, including structured recommendations from the American Heart Association and narrative guidance used by insurers. Using GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5, we observe consistent performance patterns across sources and clinical domains: accuracy is highest on structured guideline recommendations (90%) and lower on narrative guideline and systematic review questions (60--70%). We also find a strong correlation between accuracy and the citation count of the underlying systematic reviews, where each doubling of citations is associated with roughly a 30% increase in the odds of a correct answer. Models show moderate ability to reason about evidence quality when contextual information is supplied. When we incorporate retrieval-augmented prompting, providing the gold-source abstract raises accuracy on previously incorrect items to 0.79; providing top 3 PubMed abstracts (ranked by semantic relevance) improves accuracy to 0.23, while random abstracts reduce accuracy (0.10, within temperature variation). These effects are mirrored in GPT-4o-mini, underscoring that source clarity and targeted retrieval -- not just model size -- drive performance. Overall, our results highlight both the promise and current limitations of LLMs for evidence-based clinical question answering. Retrieval-augmented prompting emerges as a useful strategy to improve factual accuracy and alignment with source evidence, while stratified evaluation by specialty and question type remains essential to understand current knowledge access and to contextualize model performance.

Related papers

• Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification [60.18369393468405]
  Existing verifiers usually underperform owing to a lack of domain knowledge and limited calibration.<n>GLEAN compiles expert-curated protocols into trajectory-informed, well-calibrated correctness signals.<n>We empirically validate GLEAN with agentic clinical diagnosis across three diseases from the MIMIC-IV dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T09:36:43Z)
• When Metrics Disagree: Automatic Similarity vs. LLM-as-a-Judge for Clinical Dialogue Evaluation [18.338933046286257]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly employed to address diverse problems, including medical queries.<n>LLMs often perform poorly in medical contexts, potentially leading to harmful misguidance for users.<n>This paper focuses on fine-tuning the Llama 2 7B, a transformer-based, decoder-only model, using transcripts from real patient-doctor interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T21:09:43Z)
• A Multi-Agent Framework for Medical AI: Leveraging Fine-Tuned GPT, LLaMA, and DeepSeek R1 for Evidence-Based and Bias-Aware Clinical Query Processing [0.4349324020366305]
  Large language models (LLMs) show promise for healthcare question answering, but clinical use is limited by weak verification, insufficient evidence grounding, and unreliable confidence signalling.<n>We propose a multi-agent medical QA framework that combines complementary LLMs with evidence retrieval, uncertainty estimation, and bias checks to improve answer reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T14:17:27Z)
• Fine-Tuning MedGemma for Clinical Captioning to Enhance Multimodal RAG over Malaysia CPGs [0.9558392439655014]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems are essential for providing fact-based guidance from Malaysian Clinical Practice Guidelines.<n>This study proposes and validates a framework to specialize the MedGemma model for generating high-fidelity captions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T08:11:54Z)
• EchoBench: Benchmarking Sycophancy in Medical Large Vision-Language Models [82.43729208063468]
  Recent benchmarks for medical Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) emphasize leaderboard accuracy, overlooking reliability and safety.<n>We study sycophancy -- models' tendency to uncritically echo user-provided information.<n>We introduce EchoBench, a benchmark to systematically evaluate sycophancy in medical LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T14:09:55Z)
• Retrieval-Augmented Clinical Benchmarking for Contextual Model Testing in Kenyan Primary Care: A Methodology Paper [0.609562679184219]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) hold promise for improving healthcare access in low-resource settings, but their effectiveness in African primary care remains underexplored.<n>We present a methodology for creating a benchmark dataset and evaluation framework focused on Kenyan Level 2 and 3 clinical care.<n>Our approach uses retrieval augmented generation (RAG) to ground clinical questions in Kenya's national guidelines, ensuring alignment with local standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-19T13:25:26Z)
• Uncertainty-Driven Expert Control: Enhancing the Reliability of Medical Vision-Language Models [52.2001050216955]
  Existing methods aim to enhance the performance of Medical Vision Language Model (MedVLM) by adjusting model structure, fine-tuning with high-quality data, or through preference fine-tuning.<n>We propose an expert-in-the-loop framework named Expert-Controlled-Free Guidance (Expert-CFG) to align MedVLM with clinical expertise without additional training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-12T09:03:30Z)
• Improving Reliability and Explainability of Medical Question Answering through Atomic Fact Checking in Retrieval-Augmented LLMs [4.003209132872364]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit extensive medical knowledge but are prone to hallucinations and inaccurate citations.<n>Current methods, such as Retrieval Augmented Generation, partially address these issues by grounding answers in source documents.<n>We introduce a novel atomic fact-checking framework designed to enhance the reliability and explainability of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T17:33:07Z)
• GEMA-Score: Granular Explainable Multi-Agent Scoring Framework for Radiology Report Evaluation [7.838068874909676]
  Granular Explainable Multi-Agent Score (GEMA-Score) conducts both objective and subjective evaluation through a large language model-based multi-agent workflow.<n>GEMA-Score achieves the highest correlation with human expert evaluations on a public dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T11:42:22Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• SemioLLM: Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Reasoning from Unstructured Clinical Narratives in Epilepsy [45.2233252981348]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to encode clinical knowledge.<n>We present SemioLLM, an evaluation framework that benchmarks 6 state-of-the-art models.<n>We show that most LLMs are able to accurately and confidently generate probabilistic predictions of seizure onset zones in the brain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T11:02:12Z)
• Zero-shot Generative Large Language Models for Systematic Review Screening Automation [55.403958106416574]
  This study investigates the effectiveness of using zero-shot large language models for automatic screening. We evaluate the effectiveness of eight different LLMs and investigate a calibration technique that uses a predefined recall threshold.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T01:54:08Z)
• Self-Verification Improves Few-Shot Clinical Information Extraction [73.6905567014859]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown the potential to accelerate clinical curation via few-shot in-context learning. They still struggle with issues regarding accuracy and interpretability, especially in mission-critical domains such as health. Here, we explore a general mitigation framework using self-verification, which leverages the LLM to provide provenance for its own extraction and check its own outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T22:05:11Z)
• Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge [21.630872464930587]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation. We propose a framework for human evaluation of model answers along multiple axes including factuality, precision, possible harm, and bias. We show that comprehension, recall of knowledge, and medical reasoning improve with model scale and instruction prompt tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-26T14:28:24Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.