Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38960731›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

Reasoning with large language models for medical question answering.

Mary M Lucas, Justin Yang, Jon K Pomeroy, Christopher C Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. MediHive: A Decentralized Agent Collective for Medical Reasoning.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Medical reasoning in LLMs: an in-depth analysis of DeepSeek R1.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Article
  18. Large language models in biomedicine and health: current research landscape and future directions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mary M LucasCollege of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0413-7499
Justin YangDepartment of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, United States.
Jon K PomeroyCollege of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.
Christopher C YangCollege of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States.

Funding

Department of Defense DoD W91XWH-05-1-023National Science Foundation IIS-1741306
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate approaches of reasoning with large language models (LLMs) and to propose a new prompting approach, ensemble reasoning, to improve medical question answering performance with refined reasoning and reduced inconsistency. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe used multiple choice questions from the USMLE Sample Exam question files on 2 closed-source commercial and 1 open-source clinical LLM to evaluate our proposed approach ensemble reasoning.

resultsOn GPT-3.5 turbo and Med42-70B, our proposed ensemble reasoning approach outperformed zero-shot chain-of-thought with self-consistency on Steps 1, 2, and 3 questions (+3.44%, +4.00%, and +2.54%) and (2.3%, 5.00%, and 4.15%), respectively. With GPT-4 turbo, there were mixed results with ensemble reasoning again outperforming zero-shot chain-of-thought with self-consistency on Step 1 questions (+1.15%). In all cases, the results demonstrated improved consistency of responses with our approach. A qualitative analysis of the reasoning from the model demonstrated that the ensemble reasoning approach produces correct and helpful reasoning.

conclusionThe proposed iterative ensemble reasoning has the potential to improve the performance of LLMs in medical question answering tasks, particularly with the less powerful LLMs like GPT-3.5 turbo and Med42-70B, which may suggest that this is a promising approach for LLMs with lower capabilities. Additionally, the findings show that our approach helps to refine the reasoning generated by the LLM and thereby improve consistency even with the more powerful GPT-4 turbo. We also identify the potential and need for human-artificial intelligence teaming to improve the reasoning beyond the limits of the model.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingEducational MeasurementHumansartificial intelligenceclinical reasoninglarge language modelmachine reasoning

Identifiers

PMID38960731
PMCPMC11339506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.