CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 338Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTopic ModelingMachine Learning in Healthcare

Towards Expert-Level Medical Question Answering with Large Language Models

Open access
Singhal, Karan, Tu, Tao, Gottweis, Juraj, Sayres, Rory, Wulczyn, Ellery, Hou, Le, Clark, Kevin, Pfohl, Stephen +23 more·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2305.09617arXiv 2305.09617
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recent artificial intelligence (AI) systems have reached milestones in "grand challenges" ranging from Go to protein-folding. The capability to retrieve medical knowledge, reason over it, and answer medical questions comparably to physicians has long been viewed as one such grand challenge. Large language models (LLMs) have catalyzed significant progress in medical question answering; Med-PaLM was the first model to exceed a "passing" score in US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) style questions with a score of 67.2% on the MedQA dataset. However, this and other prior work suggested significant room for improvement, especially when models' answers were compared to clinicians' answers. Here we present Med-PaLM 2, which bridges these gaps by leveraging a combination of base LLM improvements (PaLM 2), medical domain finetuning, and prompting strategies including a novel ensemble refinement approach. Med-PaLM 2 scored up to 86.5% on the MedQA dataset, improving upon Med-PaLM by over 19% and setting a new state-of-the-art. We also observed performance approaching or exceeding state-of-the-art across MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and MMLU clinical topics datasets. We performed detailed human evaluations on long-form questions along multiple axes relevant to clinical applications. In pairwise comparative ranking of 1066 consumer medical questions, physicians preferred Med-PaLM 2 answers to those produced by physicians on eight of nine axes pertaining to clinical utility (p < 0.001). We also observed significant improvements compared to Med-PaLM on every evaluation axis (p < 0.001) on newly introduced datasets of 240 long-form "adversarial" questions to probe LLM limitations. While further studies are necessary to validate the efficacy of these models in real-world settings, these results highlight rapid progress towards physician-level performance in medical question answering.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2305.09617

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The step-by-step explanations were generated by a panel of qualified clinicians who identified the best examples and crafted the few-shot prompts as part of the Med-PaLM project.

    “The step-by-step explanations were generated by a panel of qualified clinicians who identified the best examples and crafted the few-shot prompts as part of the Med-PaLM project.”

    From Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs (2023) · cites this paper as Singhal et al. (2023)

    Section 3.3 (page not available) says the authors crafted chain-of-thought prompts with step-by-step explanations for Med-PaLM 2. It does not say a panel of qualified clinicians generated the explanations or selected the best examples; it says the few-shot prompts were reused from prior work, rather than crafted for this project. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The few-shot Q&A examples with explanations are provided for each medical dataset in Singhal et al. (2023).

    “The few-shot Q&A examples with explanations are provided for each medical dataset inSinghal et al. (2023).”

    From Should we be going MAD? A Look at Multi-Agent Debate Strategies for LLMs (2023) · cites this paper as Singhal et al. (2023)

    The Additional information section (page unavailable) says Tables A.10–A.13 provide chain-of-thought prompts, and §3.3 explains that these add step-by-step explanations to few-shot examples. But the PubMedQA prompt in Table A.14 has no chain-of-thought explanations, while Table A.17 gives long-form datasets prompt templates rather than explained few-shot Q&A examples. The claim’s 'for each medical dataset' is therefore too broad. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The factuality of LLMs in the medical domain is often measured as 'correctness' on multiple-choice medical questions.

    “The factuality of LLMs in the medical domain is often measured as”

    From MedScore: Generalizable Factuality Evaluation of Open-ended Long-form Medical Answers by Domain-adapted Claim Decomposition and Verification (2026) · cites this paper as Singhal et al., 2023

    The Multiple-choice questions and 4.1 Multiple-choice evaluation sections show that the paper evaluates medical LLMs on multiple-choice benchmarks using accuracy. But the Introduction distinguishes those benchmarks, which measure encoded knowledge, from assessing whether a model generates factual, safe responses. The source therefore supports the use of multiple-choice correctness as an evaluation measure, but not its characterization as a measure of factuality. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Domain-specific LLMs perform well in clinical text summarization, note generation, and medical question answering.

    “Domain-specific LLMs, fine-tuned on medical corpora or using knowledge graph embeddings, perform well in clinical text summarization [10, 11], note generation [12, 13], and medical question answering [14].”

    From Enhancing hepatopathy clinical trial efficiency: a secure, large language model-powered pre-screening pipeline (2025) · cites this paper as [14]

  • LLMs have achieved excellent performance on medical licensing exams.

    “where LLMs score well above passing8–10,17–20”

    From Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making (2024) · cites this paper as [8]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T., Mahdavi, S. S., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., Scales, N., Tanwani, A., Cole-Lewis, H., Pfohl, S., et al. Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13138 (2022). · arXiv
  2. Nori, H., King, N., McKinney, S. M., Carignan, D. & Horvitz, E. Capabilities of gpt-4 on medical challenge problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13375 (2023). · arXiv
  3. Liévin, V., Hother, C. E. & Winther, O. Can large language models reason about medical questions? arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.08143 (2022). · arXiv
  4. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł. & Polosukhin, I. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017).
  5. Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K. & Toutanova, K. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805 (2018). · arXiv
  6. Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W. & Liu, P. J. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 21, 5485-5551 (2020).
  7. Yasunaga, M., Leskovec, J. & Liang, P. LinkBERT: Pretraining Language Models with Document Links. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15827 (2022). · arXiv
  8. Yasunaga, M., Bosselut, A., Ren, H., Zhang, X., Manning, C. D., Liang, P. & Leskovec, J. Deep bidirectional language- knowledge graph pretraining. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09338 (2022). · arXiv
  9. Gu, Y., Tinn, R., Cheng, H., Lucas, M., Usuyama, N., Liu, X., Naumann, T., Gao, J. & Poon, H. Domain-specific language model pretraining for biomedical natural language processing. ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare (HEALTH) 3, 1-23 (2021).
  10. Jin, D., Pan, E., Oufattole, N., Weng, W.-H., Fang, H. & Szolovits, P. What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams. Applied Sciences 11, 6421 (2021).
  11. Pal, A., Umapathi, L. K. & Sankarasubbu, M. MedMCQA: A Large-scale Multi-Subject Multi-Choice Dataset for Medical domain Question Answering in Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning (2022), 248-260.
  12. Jin, Q., Dhingra, B., Liu, Z., Cohen, W. W. & Lu, X. PubMedQA: A dataset for biomedical research question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06146 (2019). · arXiv
  13. Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33, 1877-1901 (2020).
  14. Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. PaLM: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311 (2022). · arXiv
  15. Chung, H. W., Hou, L., Longpre, S., Zoph, B., Tay, Y., Fedus, W., Li, E., Wang, X., Dehghani, M., Brahma, S., et al. Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416 (2022). · arXiv
  16. Levine, D. M., Tuwani, R., Kompa, B., Varma, A., Finlayson, S. G., Mehrotra, A. & Beam, A. The Diagnostic and Triage Accuracy of the GPT-3 Artificial Intelligence Model. medRxiv, 2023-01 (2023).
  17. Oh, N., Choi, G.-S. & Lee, W. Y. ChatGPT Goes to Operating Room: Evaluating GPT-4 Performance and Its Potential in Surgical Education and Training in the Era of Large Language Models. medRxiv, 2023-03 (2023).
  18. Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E. & Zhou, D. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171 (2022). · arXiv
  19. Sun, Z., Wang, X., Tay, Y., Yang, Y. & Zhou, D. Recitation-Augmented Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01296 (2022). · arXiv
  20. Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. Self-refine: Iterative refinement with self-feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17651 (2023). · arXiv
  21. Nair, V., Schumacher, E., Tso, G. & Kannan, A. DERA: Enhancing Large Language Model Completions with Dialog-Enabled Resolving Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17071 (2023). · arXiv
  22. Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D. & Steinhardt, J. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300 (2020). · arXiv
  23. Inker, L. A., Eneanya, N. D., Coresh, J., Tighiouart, H., Wang, D., Sang, Y., Crews, D. C., Doria, A., Estrella, M. M., Froissart, M., et al. New creatinine-and cystatin C-based equations to estimate GFR without race. New England Journal of Medicine 385, 1737-1749 (2021).
  24. Chen, I. Y., Pierson, E., Rose, S., Joshi, S., Ferryman, K. & Ghassemi, M. Ethical machine learning in healthcare. Annual review of biomedical data science 4, 123-144 (2021).
  25. Rigby, M. J. Ethical dimensions of using artificial intelligence in health care. AMA Journal of Ethics 21, 121-124 (2019).
  26. Williams, T., Szekendi, M., Pavkovic, S., Clevenger, W. & Cerese, J. The reliability of AHRQ Common Format Harm Scales in rating patient safety events. Journal of patient safety 11, 52-59 (2015).
  27. Yearby, R. Structural racism and health disparities: Reconfiguring the social determinants of health framework to include the root cause. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 48, 518-526 (2020).
  28. Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Chi, E., Le, Q. & Zhou, D. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903 (2022). · arXiv
  29. Wang, b., Min, S., Deng, X., Shen, J., Wu, Y., Zettlemoyer, L. & Sun, H. Towards Understanding Chain-of-Thought Prompting: An Empirical Study of What Matters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10001 (2022). · arXiv
  30. Lewkowycz, A., Andreassen, A., Dohan, D., Dyer, E., Michalewski, H., Ramasesh, V., Slone, A., Anil, C., Schlag, I., Gutman-Solo, T., et al. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14858 (2022). · arXiv
  31. OpenAI. GPT-4 Technical Report 2023. arXiv: 2303.08774 [cs.CL]. · arXiv
  32. Thoppilan, R., De Freitas, D., Hall, J., Shazeer, N., Kulshreshtha, A., Cheng, H.-T., Jin, A., Bos, T., Baker, L., Du, Y., et al. Lamda: Language models for dialog applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08239 (2022). · arXiv
  33. Kossen, J., Cangea, C., Vértes, E., Jaegle, A., Patraucean, V., Ktena, I., Tomasev, N. & Belgrave, D. Active Acquisition for Multimodal Temporal Data: A Challenging Decision-Making Task. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05039 (2022). · arXiv
  34. Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359 (2021). · arXiv
  35. Liang, P., Bommasani, R., Lee, T., Tsipras, D., Soylu, D., Yasunaga, M., Zhang, Y., Narayanan, D., Wu, Y., Kumar, A., et al. Holistic evaluation of language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09110 (2022). · arXiv
  36. Perez, E., Huang, S., Song, F., Cai, T., Ring, R., Aslanides, J., Glaese, A., McAleese, N. & Irving, G. Red teaming language models with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03286 (2022). · arXiv
  37. Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Chi, E., Le, Q. & Zhou, D. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903 (2022). · arXiv
  38. Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T., Mahdavi, S. S., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., Scales, N., Tanwani, A., Cole-Lewis, H., Pfohl, S., et al. Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.13138 (2022). · arXiv
  39. Jin, D., Pan, E., Oufattole, N., Weng, W.-H., Fang, H. & Szolovits, P. What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams. Applied Sciences 11, 6421 (2021).
  40. Pal, A., Umapathi, L. K. & Sankarasubbu, M. MedMCQA: A Large-scale Multi-Subject Multi-Choice Dataset for Medical domain Question Answering in Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning (2022), 248-260.
  41. Jin, Q., Dhingra, B., Liu, Z., Cohen, W. W. & Lu, X. PubMedQA: A dataset for biomedical research question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06146 (2019). · arXiv
  42. Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D. & Steinhardt, J. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300 (2020). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singhal, K., Tu, T., Gottweis, J., Sayres, R., Wulczyn, E., Hou, L., Clark, K., Pfohl, S., Cole-Lewis, H., Neal, D., Schaekermann, M., Wang, A., Amin, M., Lachgar, S., Mansfield, P., Prakash, S., Green, B., Dominowska, E., Arcas, B. A. Y., Tomasev, N., Liu, Y., Wong, R., Semturs, C., Mahdavi, S. S., Barral, J., Webster, D., Corrado, G. S., Matias, Y., Azizi, S., Karthikesalingam, A., & Natarajan, V.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2305.09617
arXiv
2305.09617
OpenAlex
W4377009978
Cited by
338
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 180 · 2023: 60
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
medical question answering, large language models, PaLM 2, ensemble refinement, USMLE, MedQA, clinical utility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review