ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Collaborative intelligence in AI: Evaluating the performance of a council of AIs on the USMLE.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multidisciplinary Team-Based Large Language Model Framework for Predicting Postoperative Neurological Complications in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: Model Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Plastic Surgery Education: A Global Multimodel Benchmark of Large Language Models on the Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Examination.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Four Core Medical School Courses: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The stochastic nature of next-token generation and resulting response variability in Large Language Models (LLMs) outputs pose challenges in ensuring consistency and accuracy on knowledge assessments. This study introduces a novel multi-agent framework, referred to as a "Council of AIs", to enhance LLM performance through collaborative decision-making. The Council consists of multiple GPT-4 instances that iteratively discuss and reach consensus on answers facilitated by a designated "Facilitator AI." This methodology was applied to 325 United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) questions across all three exam stages: Step 1, focusing on biomedical sciences; Step 2 evaluating clinical knowledge (CK)\; and Step 3, evaluating readiness for independent medical practice. The Council achieved consensus that were correct 97%, 93%, and 94% of the time for Step 1, Step 2 CK, and Step 3, respectively, outperforming single-instance GPT-4 models. In cases where there wasn't an initial unanimous response, the Council deliberations achieved a consensus that was the correct answer 83% of the time, with the Council correcting over half (53%) of the responses that majority vote had gotten incorrect. The odds of a majority voting response changing from incorrect to correct were 5 (95% CI: 1.1, 22.8) times higher than the odds of changing from correct to incorrect after discussion. This study provides the first evidence that the semantic entropy of the response space can consistently be reduced to zero-demonstrated here through Council deliberation, and suggesting the possibility of other mechanisms to achieve the same outcome.. This study revealed that in a Council model, response variability, often considered a limitation, can be transformed into a strength that supports adaptive reasoning and collaborative refinement of answers. These findings suggest new paradigms for AI implementation and reveal the heightened strength that emerges when AIs begin to collaborate as a collective rather than operate alone.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.