arXiv:2509. 02594v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate high-quality, accurate, situationally aware answers to clinical questions requires going beyond conventional benchmarks to assess how these systems behave in complex, high-stakes clinical scenarios.
arXiv:2607. 25485v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Health AI is evolving from answering questions to agentic systems that converse with patients, reason about health records, and act on their behalf.
The paper introduces a retrieval‑augmented multi‑agent framework that automatically generates instance‑specific evaluation rubrics for medical language models. By retrieving authoritative medical evidence, decomposing it into atomic facts, and combining these with user interaction constraints, the system produces fine‑grained criteria that outperform GPT‑4o on HealthBench and LLMEval‑Med. The generated rubrics also guide response refinement, improving medical LLM output quality by 9.2%.
arXiv:2609.38480v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Most clinical benchmarks evaluate language models (LMs) on diagnosis using complete case descriptions. In clinical practice, however, patients presen...
arXiv:2608. 12138v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: General-purpose large language models (LLMs) have recently been reported to match or exceed specialized clinical AI tools on medical benchmarks, but such comparisons draw on a narrow set of systems and on benchmarks developed largely in high-income settings.
arXiv:2606. 28960v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Physicians now pose millions of clinical questions to AI tools each week, yet these tools are evaluated largely on hypothetical or exam-style questions, not those actually asked in practice.
arXiv:2606. 18613v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The most plausible near-term role of medical LLMs is to assist rather than replace physicians, yet current evaluations often test isolated capabilities: clinical knowledge, EHR system interaction, or patient communication.
HealthBench-Psych is a mental‑health subset of the OpenAI HealthBench benchmark, created by filtering 5,000 physician‑rubric conversations for mental‑health relevance using an LLM‑applied rubric and validating the selection through two rounds of blinded clinician review. The resulting 610 conversations (12.2 % of the corpus) are released along with a pipeline, model responses, grades, and analysis code. Evaluation of 20 frontier and open models by a cross‑vendor panel of three LLM judges shows a statistically tied frontier cluster, measurable refusal behavior in two models, and near‑identical rankings across judges (τ ≥ 0.92).
arXiv:2607. 02175v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multiple-choice medical benchmarks are increasingly saturated, and recent rubric-based evaluations such as HealthBench have shown that open-ended clinical performance is far from solved - its "Hard" subset top score remains 32%.
arXiv:2512. 01241v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.
arXiv:2606. 18203v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The LLM-empowered personal health agents with user health (sensor) metrics have offered a promising pathway to alleviate global disparities in healthcare access.
arXiv:2606. 17474v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for use in clinical consultation tasks, yet most medical evaluations remain static, single-turn, or narrowly outcome-based, limiting their ability to reflect the sequential, uncertain, and interactive nature of real-world care.
arXiv:2603. 25821v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We present Doctorina MedBench, a comprehensive evaluation framework for agent-based medical AI based on the simulation of realistic physician-patient interactions.