Can Large Language Models Self-Correct in Medical Question Answering? An Exploratory Study

Incorporating large language models (LLMs) in medical question answering demands more than high average accuracy: a model that returns substantively different answers each time it is queried is not a reliable medical tool. Online health communities such as Reddit have become a primary source of medical information for millions of users, yet they remain highly susceptible to misinformation; deploying LLMs as assistants in these settings amplifies the need for output consistency alongside correctness. We present a practical, open-source evaluation framework for assessing small, locally-deployable open-weight LLMs on medical question answering, treating reproducibility as a first-class metric alongside lexical and semantic accuracy. Our pipeline computes eight quality metrics, including BERTScore, ROUGE-L, and an LLM-as-judge rubric, together with two within-model reproducibility metrics derived from repeated inference (N=10 runs per question). Evaluating three models (Llama 3.1 8B, Gemma 3 12B, MedGemma 1.5 4B) on 50 MedQuAD questions (N=1,500 total responses) reveals that despite low-temperature generation (T=0.2), self-agreement across runs reaches at most 0.20, while 87-97% of all outputs per model are unique -- a safety gap that single-pass benchmarks entirely miss. The clinically fine-tuned MedGemma 1.5 4B underperforms the larger general-purpose models on both quality and reproducibility; however, because MedGemma is also the smallest model, this comparison confounds domain fine-tuning with model scale. We describe the methodology in sufficient detail for practitioners to replicate or extend the evaluation for their own model-selection workflows. All code and data pipelines are available at https://github.com/aviad-buskila/llm_medical_reproducibility.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in medical settings, yet their sensitivity to prompt formatting remains poorly characterized. We evaluate MedGemma (4B and 27B parameters) on MedMCQA (4,183 questions) and PubMedQA (1,000 questions) across a broad suite of robustness tests. Our experiments reveal several concerning findings. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting decreases accuracy by 5.7% compared to direct answering. Few-shot examples degrade performance by 11.9% while increasing position bias from 0.14 to 0.47. Shuffling answer options causes the model to change predictions 59.1% of the time, with accuracy dropping up to 27.4 percentage points. Front-truncating context to 50% causes accuracy to plummet below the no-context baseline, yet back-truncation preserves 97% of full-context accuracy. We further show that cloze scoring (selecting the highest log-probability option token) achieves 51.8% (4B) and 64.5% (27B), surpassing all prompting strategies and revealing that models "know" more than their generated text shows. Permutation voting recovers 4 percentage points over single-ordering inference. These results demonstrate that prompt engineering techniques validated on general-purpose models do not transfer to domain-specific medical LLMs, and that reliable alternatives exist.

Objective: To enhance the accuracy, interpretability, and robustness of large language models (LLMs) in medical question answering (MedQA). Method: We designed a multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method in which multiple LLM agents independently generate chain-of-thought reasoning with candidate answers, then act as peer reviewers to evaluate each other's reasoning for factual correctness and logical soundness. The highest-rated reasoning chain is selected to produce the final answer. Experiments were conducted with five state-of-the-art LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, Phi-4, DeepSeek-LLM-7B, GPT-oss-20B) on three benchmark datasets: HeadQA, MedQA-USMLE, and PubMedQA. Performance was compared against single-model chain-of-thought reasoning and chain-of-thought-based majority voting. Results: Peer-reviewed reasoning consistently outperformed both baselines. The best model combination achieved an average accuracy of 0.820 across datasets, exceeding the strongest single model (0.777) and majority voting ensembles (up to 0.789). The method also scaled effectively with more participating models, while peer assessments reliably distinguished high- from low-quality reasoning chains. Conclusion: The proposed multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method enables LLMs to act as both solvers and evaluators, yielding superior performance in MedQA. By emphasizing reasoning quality rather than answer agreement alone, this approach improves accuracy, interpretability, and robustness, offering a promising direction for trustworthy biomedical AI systems.