MedXpertQA: Benchmarking Expert-Level Medical Reasoning and Understanding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18362v2
• Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:02:22 GMT
• Title: MedXpertQA: Benchmarking Expert-Level Medical Reasoning and Understanding
• Authors: Yuxin Zuo, Shang Qu, Yifei Li, Zhangren Chen, Xuekai Zhu, Ermo Hua, Kaiyan Zhang, Ning Ding, Bowen Zhou,
• Abstract summary: MedXpertQA includes 4,460 questions spanning 17 specialties and 11 body systems. MM introduces expert-level exam questions with diverse images and rich clinical information.
• Score: 20.83722922095852
• License:
• Abstract: We introduce MedXpertQA, a highly challenging and comprehensive benchmark to evaluate expert-level medical knowledge and advanced reasoning. MedXpertQA includes 4,460 questions spanning 17 specialties and 11 body systems. It includes two subsets, Text for text evaluation and MM for multimodal evaluation. Notably, MM introduces expert-level exam questions with diverse images and rich clinical information, including patient records and examination results, setting it apart from traditional medical multimodal benchmarks with simple QA pairs generated from image captions. MedXpertQA applies rigorous filtering and augmentation to address the insufficient difficulty of existing benchmarks like MedQA, and incorporates specialty board questions to improve clinical relevance and comprehensiveness. We perform data synthesis to mitigate data leakage risk and conduct multiple rounds of expert reviews to ensure accuracy and reliability. We evaluate 16 leading models on MedXpertQA. Moreover, medicine is deeply connected to real-world decision-making, providing a rich and representative setting for assessing reasoning abilities beyond mathematics and code. To this end, we develop a reasoning-oriented subset to facilitate the assessment of o1-like models.

Related papers

• MedCoT: Medical Chain of Thought via Hierarchical Expert [48.91966620985221]
  This paper presents MedCoT, a novel hierarchical expert verification reasoning chain method. It is designed to enhance interpretability and accuracy in biomedical imaging inquiries. Experimental evaluations on four standard Med-VQA datasets demonstrate that MedCoT surpasses existing state-of-the-art approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T11:14:02Z)
• Comprehensive and Practical Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems for Medical Question Answering [70.44269982045415]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising approach to enhance the performance of large language models (LLMs) We introduce Medical Retrieval-Augmented Generation Benchmark (MedRGB) that provides various supplementary elements to four medical QA datasets. Our experimental results reveals current models' limited ability to handle noise and misinformation in the retrieved documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T06:19:18Z)
• Worse than Random? An Embarrassingly Simple Probing Evaluation of Large Multimodal Models in Medical VQA [24.10436440624249]
  Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have shown remarkable progress in medical Visual Question Answering (Med-VQA) This study reveals that when subjected to simple probing evaluation, state-of-the-art models perform worse than random guessing on medical diagnosis questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T18:56:01Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models on Answering and Explaining Challenging Medical Questions [19.436999992810797]
  We construct two new datasets: JAMA Clinical Challenge and Medbullets. JAMA Clinical Challenge consists of questions based on challenging clinical cases, while Medbullets comprises simulated clinical questions. We evaluate seven LLMs on the two datasets using various prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T05:44:41Z)
• MedBench: A Large-Scale Chinese Benchmark for Evaluating Medical Large Language Models [56.36916128631784]
  We introduce MedBench, a comprehensive benchmark for the Chinese medical domain. This benchmark is composed of four key components: the Chinese Medical Licensing Examination, the Resident Standardization Training Examination, and real-world clinic cases. We perform extensive experiments and conduct an in-depth analysis from diverse perspectives, which culminate in the following findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-20T07:01:49Z)
• Can Generalist Foundation Models Outcompete Special-Purpose Tuning? Case Study in Medicine [89.46836590149883]
  We build on a prior study of GPT-4's capabilities on medical challenge benchmarks in the absence of special training. We find that prompting innovation can unlock deeper specialist capabilities and show that GPT-4 easily tops prior leading results for medical benchmarks. With Medprompt, GPT-4 achieves state-of-the-art results on all nine of the benchmark datasets in the MultiMedQA suite.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-28T03:16:12Z)
• Emulating Human Cognitive Processes for Expert-Level Medical Question-Answering with Large Language Models [0.23463422965432823]
  BooksMed is a novel framework based on a Large Language Model (LLM) It emulates human cognitive processes to deliver evidence-based and reliable responses. We present ExpertMedQA, a benchmark comprised of open-ended, expert-level clinical questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T13:39:26Z)
• Informing clinical assessment by contextualizing post-hoc explanations of risk prediction models in type-2 diabetes [50.8044927215346]
  We consider a comorbidity risk prediction scenario and focus on contexts regarding the patients clinical state. We employ several state-of-the-art LLMs to present contexts around risk prediction model inferences and evaluate their acceptability. Our paper is one of the first end-to-end analyses identifying the feasibility and benefits of contextual explanations in a real-world clinical use case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T18:07:11Z)
• Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge [21.630872464930587]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation. We propose a framework for human evaluation of model answers along multiple axes including factuality, precision, possible harm, and bias. We show that comprehension, recall of knowledge, and medical reasoning improve with model scale and instruction prompt tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-26T14:28:24Z)
• Interpretable Multi-Step Reasoning with Knowledge Extraction on Complex Healthcare Question Answering [89.76059961309453]
  HeadQA dataset contains multiple-choice questions authorized for the public healthcare specialization exam. These questions are the most challenging for current QA systems. We present a Multi-step reasoning with Knowledge extraction framework (MurKe) We are striving to make full use of off-the-shelf pre-trained models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-06T02:47:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.