# Evaluating Small Open LLMs for Medical Question Answering: A Practical Framework

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10535 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.10535/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.13138/) (2022)
- [What Disease does this Patient Have? A Large-scale Open Domain Question Answering Dataset from Medical Exams](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.13081/) (2020)
- [Can Generalist Foundation Models Outcompete Special-Purpose Tuning? Case Study in Medicine](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16452/) (2023)
- [Universal Self-Consistency for Large Language Model Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17311/) (2023)
- [A Question-Entailment Approach to Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.08079/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.