Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association· 2026Q1
A statistical framework for evaluating the repeatability and reproducibility of large language models
- 28citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A new statistical framework quantifies Large Language Model (LLM) variability in medicine using repeatability (consistency under identical conditions) and reproducibility (consistency under different conditions) metrics, evaluating semantic consistency and internal stability.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Introduces a statistical framework to measure LLM repeatability and reproducibility.
- Evaluates semantic consistency and internal stability of LLM responses.
- LLM responses were more stable for real-world rare disease cases than for standardized USMLE questions.
- LLM response consistency did not correlate with diagnostic accuracy.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
A major concern in applying large language models (LLMs) to medicine is their reliability. Because LLMs generate text by sampling the next token (or word) from a probability distribution, the stochastic nature of this process can lead to different outputs even when the input prompt, model architecture, and parameters remain the same. Variation in model output has important implications for reliability in medical applications, yet it remains underexplored and lacks standardized metrics. To address this gap, we propose a statistical framework that systematically quantifies LLM variability using two metrics: repeatability, the consistency of LLM responses across repeated runs under identical conditions, and reproducibility, the consistency across runs under different conditions. Within these metrics, we evaluate two complementary dimensions: semantic consistency, which measures the similarity in meaning across responses, and internal stability, which measures the stability of the model's underlying token-generating process. We applied this framework to medical reasoning as a use case, evaluating LLM repeatability and reproducibility on standardized United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) questions and real-world rare disease cases from the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN) using validated medical reasoning prompts. LLM responses were less variable for UDN cases than for USMLE questions, suggesting that the complexity and ambiguity of real-world patient presentations may constrain the model's output space and yield more stable reasoning. Repeatability and reproducibility did not correlate with diagnostic accuracy, underscoring that an LLM producing a correct answer is not equivalent to producing it consistently. By providing a systematic approach to quantifying LLM repeatability and reproducibility, our framework supports more reliable use of LLMs in medicine and biomedical research.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Health Informatics
Health InformaticsMedicine