The study evaluates four zero‑shot System 1 models on 86 public clinical tasks across 14 domains and 20 languages, measuring performance via AUROC. The best models achieved high AUROC scores—0.94 for medical knowledge, 0.93 for text understanding, 0.83 for clinical judgement from text, 0.89 for image perception, 0.84 for 2D image findings, and 0.69 for volumetric findings—yet performed worse on imaging tasks and varied significantly with language. System 1 models were fast (0.34–0.44 s) and energy‑efficient (24–81 J) but lagged behind clinicians on triage and were outperformed by generative models in some metrics.
By Xiufeng Yang, Konstantinos Vrettos, Zeineb Ben Chaaben, Fabian Drexel, Jannik L\"ubberstedt, Johannes Moll, Anirudh Narayanan, Frederike Stumpf, Cosmin I. Bercea, Jiawen Wang, Evangelia E. Vassalou, Krischan Braitsch, Sebastian Ziegelmayer, Markus Graf, Marcus R. Makowski, Lisa Adams, Nassir Navab, Michail E. Klontzas, Keno Bressem
Many clinical decisions are a choice among a few fixed options, taken quickly and in large numbers. Such decisions also need an uncertainty estimate to know when to defer to a clinician. Generative la...
arXiv:2610.15239v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Most benchmarks for large language models in medicine are built from licensing examinations and theoretical questions. The few that draw on real clinic...
By Anurag Sharma, Aditya Sharma, Sapna Baalwan
The study introduces MedQADE, a German open‑response clinical benchmark with 3,800 question‑answer pairs and physician reference annotations. It evaluates large language models (LLMs) as judges, finding that while some LLMs (e.g., Gemini 3 Flash) achieve physician‑level agreement on correctness, they exhibit self‑bias and low abstention rates. Physicians showed moderate agreement on correctness but limited agreement on difficulty, and their abstention increased with perceived difficulty.
By William Philipp, Finn Fassbender, Daniel Fister, Thorsten Langer, Martje G. Pauly, Rebecca Herzog, Markus A. Hobert, Theresa Paulus, Alexander Baumann, Chi Wang Ip, Lukas L. Goede, Johanna Reimer, Sebastian L\"ons, Ronald B\"ock, Sebastian Fudickar
arXiv:2608.01017v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large language models can answer a medical question correctly and still abandon that answer when a user pushes back. We study this failure as...
By Kaike Ping, Buse \c{C}ar{\i}k, Caleb Wohn, Xiaohan Ding, Tongshuai Wang, Eugenia Rho
The study evaluates large language models (LLMs) on unprocessed electronic medical record data for clinical registry abstraction, focusing on the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. In a pilot at one academic center, the LLM identified candidate data sources for each registry question, which abstractors used to define question‑specific document sets. In a subsequent validation at a second center, the LLM answered 157 registry questions with an overall mean accuracy of 91.5%, but accuracy dropped from 96% for simple medication or event flag questions to 62% for event timing questions, reflecting increasing ambiguity and required clinical reasoning.
By James Matheson, Betsy Castillo, Andrew Y. Shin, David Scheinker
arXiv:2607. 20526v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where fluent but incorrect answers can be costly.
By Matthew ffrench-Constant, Daniel Yang, Xinmeng Huang, Sanyam Kapoor
The study compared 13 decision models with 15 generative large language model configurations on 1,273 four‑option MedQA questions. Decision models achieved 67.71%–89.08% accuracy, while generative models ranged from 78.32%–96.86%. Mercury Decide offered the lowest cost per 1,000 questions and Clef Omni the fastest median request time, but decision models still showed higher error rates for high‑confidence predictions and varied probability repeatability.
By Oscar Freyer, Daniel Glauert, Moritz Hofmann, Max Ostermann, Stephen Gilbert, Jakob Nikolas Kather
The paper introduces PrecepTron, a 32‑billion‑parameter language model fine‑tuned with low‑rank adaptation to evaluate clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) at a physician level. It also releases GRAND‑ROUNDS, a benchmark of 9,217 scored responses from 160 clinicians across seven studies. Using PrecepTron, the authors replicate key findings from major medical AI studies and explore new questions about LLM diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating that fine‑tuned models can provide consistent, scalable physician‑level scoring.
By Thomas A. Buckley, Zahir Kanjee, Peter G. Brodeur, Byron Crowe, Anthony M. Pettinato, Aashna P. Shah, Adrian D. Haimovich, Liam G. McCoy, Daniel Restrepo, Jason A. Freed, Ethan Goh, Jonathan H. Chen, Laura Zwaan, Katherine E. Goodman, Daniel J. Morgan, Raja-Elie E. Abdulnour, Adam Rodman, Arjun K. Manrai
arXiv:2610.31993v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: AI models already inform clinical decisions and draft notes in Australian clinical software, usually without the practitioner being told which model...
By Daniel S. Epstein
arXiv:2511.00421v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show promise in medical applications, but their ability to detect and correct errors in clinical texts remains u...
By Naoto Iwase, Hiroki Okuyama, Junichiro Iwasawa
arXiv:2610.16713v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Teacher rationales can help a smaller model answer health professions questions, but they can also reinforce errors. We examined when they help and h...
By Tiago Martinelli, Jo\~ao Paulo Papa, Adriano Jos\'e Pereira