Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Assessing Large Language Models for Medical QA: Zero-Shot and LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation

Shefayat E Shams Adib, Ahmed Alfey Sani, Ekramul Alam Esham, Ajwad Abrar, Tareque Mohmud Chowdhury · Feb 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

Abstract

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant traction in medical domain, especially in developing a QA systems to Medical QA systems for enhancing access to healthcare in low-resourced settings. This paper compares five LLMs deployed between April 2024 and August 2025 for medical QA, using the iCliniq dataset, containing 38,000 medical questions and answers of diverse specialties. Our models include Llama-3-8B-Instruct, Llama 3.2 3B, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct, and GPT-5-mini. We are using a zero-shot evaluation methodology and using BLEU and ROUGE metrics to evaluate performance without specialized fine-tuning. Our results show that larger models like Llama 3.3 70B Instruct outperform smaller models, consistent with observed scaling benefits in clinical tasks. It is notable that, Llama-4-Maverick-17B exhibited more competitive results, thus highlighting evasion efficiency trade-offs relevant for practical deployment. These findings align with advancements in LLM capabilities toward professional-level medical reasoning and reflect the increasing feasibility of LLM-supported QA systems in the real clinical environments. This benchmark aims to serve as a standardized setting for future study to minimize model size, computational resources and to maximize clinical utility in medical NLP applications.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper has direct human-feedback and/or evaluation protocol signal and is likely useful for eval pipeline design.

Eval-Fit Score

37/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

High-confidence candidate

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: Medicine
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.45
  • Flags: ambiguous

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

bleurouge

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

We are using a zero-shot evaluation methodology and using BLEU and ROUGE metrics to evaluate performance without specialized fine-tuning. HFEPX signals include Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics with confidence 0.45. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 2, 2026, 10:45 PM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • We are using a zero-shot evaluation methodology and using BLEU and ROUGE metrics to evaluate performance without specialized fine-tuning.
  • This benchmark aims to serve as a standardized setting for future study to minimize model size, computational resources and to maximize clinical utility in medical NLP…

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (bleu, rouge).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We are using a zero-shot evaluation methodology and using BLEU and ROUGE metrics to evaluate performance without specialized fine-tuning.
  • This benchmark aims to serve as a standardized setting for future study to minimize model size, computational resources and to maximize clinical utility in medical NLP applications.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We are using a zero-shot evaluation methodology and using BLEU and ROUGE metrics to evaluate performance without specialized fine-tuning.
  • This benchmark aims to serve as a standardized setting for future study to minimize model size, computational resources and to maximize clinical utility in medical NLP applications.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: bleu, rouge

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.