Abstract
The growing use of large language models (LLMs) for biomedical question answering raises concerns about the accuracy and evidentiary support of their responses. To address this, we present Answered with Evidence, a framework for evaluating whether LLM generated answers are grounded in scientific literature. We analyzed thousands of physician-submitted questions using a comparative pipeline across seven LLMs grounded in different evidence sources. Six sources were grounded in PubMed or general online content, and the last source was grounded in the Atropos Alexandria library of custom real-world analyses. We found that the general purpose LLMs grounded in public information varied greatly in the answers they returned, even when those answers were sourced from the same publication. Using an ensemble approach, we observed that 49% of the time, two or more LLMs agreed on an answer. Combined, the ensemble approach and the Alexandria custom built source enabled reliable answers to over 64% of biomedical queries. As LLMs become increasingly capable of summarizing scientific content, maximizing their value will require systems that can accurately retrieve both published and custom-generated evidence or generate reliable evidence in real time.
Competing Interest Statement
JB, CD, AM, NS, and SG are employees of Atropos Health, which provided funding for this study.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by Atropos Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
This manuscript was revised to report the results of additional experiments: -An experiment evaluating the LLM-referenced citations for hallucination -An experiment evaluating the LLM-referenced snippet for hallucination -An experiment evaluating cross-LLM referenced citation for similarity -An ensemble approach to determining consensus between LLMs
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
