MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414645151 · doi:10.2196/70190

Enhancing Large Language Models for Improved Accuracy and Safety in Medical Question Answering: Comparative Study

2025· article· en· W4414645151 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dingqiao Wang, Jinguo Ye, Jingni Li, J. K. Liang, Qikai Zhang, Qiuling Hu, Caineng Pan, Dongliang Wang, Z Y Liu, Wen Shi, Mengxiang Guo, Fei Li, Wei Du, Yingfeng Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityReliability (semiconductor)Benchmark (surveying)Key (lock)Medical informationMedical decision makingMedical practiceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLMs) offer the potential to improve virtual patient-physician communication and reduce health care professionals' workload. However, limitations in accuracy, outdated knowledge, and safety issues restrict their effective use in real clinical settings. Addressing these challenges is crucial for making LLMs a reliable health care tool. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Med-RISE, an information retrieval and augmentation tool, in comparison with baseline LLMs, focusing on enhancing accuracy and safety in medical question answering across diverse clinical domains. METHODS: This comparative study introduces Med-RISE, an enhanced version of a retrieval-augmented generation framework specifically designed to improve question-answering performance across wide-ranging medical domains and diverse disciplines. Med-RISE consists of 4 key steps: query rewriting, information retrieval (providing local and real-time retrieval), summarization, and execution (a fact and safety filter before output). This study integrated Med-RISE with 4 LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Vicuna-13B, and ChatGLM-6B) and assessed their performance on 4 multiple-choice medical question datasets: MedQA (US Medical Licensing Examination), PubMedQA (original and revised versions), MedMCQA, and EYE500. Primary outcome measures included answer accuracy and hallucination rates, with hallucinations categorized into factuality (inaccurate information) or faithfulness (inconsistency with instructions) types. This study was conducted between March 2024 and August 2024. RESULTS: The integration of Med-RISE with each LLM led to a substantial increase in accuracy, with improvements ranging from 9.8% to 16.3% (mean 13%, SD 2.3%) across the 4 datasets. The enhanced accuracy rates were 16.3%, 12.9%, 13%, and 9.8% for GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Vicuna-13B, and ChatGLM-6B, respectively. In addition, Med-RISE effectively reduced hallucinations, with reductions ranging from 11.8% to 18% (mean 15.1%, SD 2.8%), factuality hallucinations decreasing by 13.5%, and faithfulness hallucinations decreasing by 5.8%. The hallucination rate reductions were 17.7%, 12.8%, 18%, and 11.8% for GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Vicuna-13B, and ChatGLM-6B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Med-RISE framework significantly improves the accuracy and reduces the hallucinations of LLMs in medical question answering across benchmark datasets. By providing local and real-time information retrieval and fact and safety filtering, Med-RISE enhances the reliability and interpretability of LLMs in the medical domain, offering a promising tool for clinical practice and decision support.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.442 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207