Mind the Gap: Evaluating the Representativeness of Quantitative Medical Language Reasoning LLM Benchmarks for African Disease Burdens

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.16322v1
• Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:05:30 GMT
• Title: Mind the Gap: Evaluating the Representativeness of Quantitative Medical Language Reasoning LLM Benchmarks for African Disease Burdens
• Authors: Fred Mutisya, Shikoh Gitau, Christine Syovata, Diana Oigara, Ibrahim Matende, Muna Aden, Munira Ali, Ryan Nyotu, Diana Marion, Job Nyangena, Nasubo Ongoma, Keith Mbae, Elizabeth Wamicha, Eric Mibuari, Jean Philbert Nsengemana, Talkmore Chidede,
• Abstract summary: Existing medical LLM benchmarks largely reflect examination syllabi and disease profiles from high income settings.<n>Alama Health QA was developed using a retrieval augmented generation framework anchored on the Kenyan Clinical Practice Guidelines.<n>Alama scored highest for relevance and guideline alignment; PubMedQA lowest for clinical utility.
• Score: 0.609562679184219
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Introduction: Existing medical LLM benchmarks largely reflect examination syllabi and disease profiles from high income settings, raising questions about their validity for African deployment where malaria, HIV, TB, sickle cell disease and other neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) dominate burden and national guidelines drive care. Methodology: We systematically reviewed 31 quantitative LLM evaluation papers (Jan 2019 May 2025) identifying 19 English medical QA benchmarks. Alama Health QA was developed using a retrieval augmented generation framework anchored on the Kenyan Clinical Practice Guidelines. Six widely used sets (AfriMedQA, MMLUMedical, PubMedQA, MedMCQA, MedQAUSMLE, and guideline grounded Alama Health QA) underwent harmonized semantic profiling (NTD proportion, recency, readability, lexical diversity metrics) and blinded expert rating across five dimensions: clinical relevance, guideline alignment, clarity, distractor plausibility, and language/cultural fit. Results: Alama Health QA captured >40% of all NTD mentions across corpora and the highest within set frequencies for malaria (7.7%), HIV (4.1%), and TB (5.2%); AfriMedQA ranked second but lacked formal guideline linkage. Global benchmarks showed minimal representation (e.g., sickle cell disease absent in three sets) despite large scale. Qualitatively, Alama scored highest for relevance and guideline alignment; PubMedQA lowest for clinical utility. Discussion: Quantitative medical LLM benchmarks widely used in the literature underrepresent African disease burdens and regulatory contexts, risking misleading performance claims. Guideline anchored, regionally curated resources such as Alama Health QA and expanded disease specific derivatives are essential for safe, equitable model evaluation and deployment across African health systems.

Related papers

• Rethinking Evidence Hierarchies in Medical Language Benchmarks: A Critical Evaluation of HealthBench [0.0]
  HealthBench is a benchmark designed to measure the capabilities of AI systems for health better.<n>Its reliance on expert opinion, rather than high-tier clinical evidence, risks codifying regional biases and individual clinician idiosyncrasies.<n>We propose anchoring reward functions in version-controlled Clinical Practice Guidelines that incorporate systematic reviews and GRADE evidence ratings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-31T18:16:10Z)
• Retrieval-Augmented Clinical Benchmarking for Contextual Model Testing in Kenyan Primary Care: A Methodology Paper [0.609562679184219]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) hold promise for improving healthcare access in low-resource settings, but their effectiveness in African primary care remains underexplored.<n>We present a methodology for creating a benchmark dataset and evaluation framework focused on Kenyan Level 2 and 3 clinical care.<n>Our approach uses retrieval augmented generation (RAG) to ground clinical questions in Kenya's national guidelines, ensuring alignment with local standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-19T13:25:26Z)
• Med-CoDE: Medical Critique based Disagreement Evaluation Framework [72.42301910238861]
  The reliability and accuracy of large language models (LLMs) in medical contexts remain critical concerns.<n>Current evaluation methods often lack robustness and fail to provide a comprehensive assessment of LLM performance.<n>We propose Med-CoDE, a specifically designed evaluation framework for medical LLMs to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T16:51:11Z)
• 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)
• CliMedBench: A Large-Scale Chinese Benchmark for Evaluating Medical Large Language Models in Clinical Scenarios [50.032101237019205]
  CliMedBench is a comprehensive benchmark with 14 expert-guided core clinical scenarios. The reliability of this benchmark has been confirmed in several ways.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:15:36Z)
• MEDIC: Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating LLMs in Clinical Applications [2.838746648891565]
  We introduce MEDIC, a framework assessing Large Language Models (LLMs) across five critical dimensions of clinical competence. We apply MEDIC to evaluate LLMs on medical question-answering, safety, summarization, note generation, and other tasks. Results show performance disparities across model sizes, baseline vs medically finetuned models, and have implications on model selection for applications requiring specific model strengths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T14:44:51Z)
• Assessing and Enhancing Large Language Models in Rare Disease Question-answering [64.32570472692187]
  We introduce a rare disease question-answering (ReDis-QA) dataset to evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in diagnosing rare diseases. We collected 1360 high-quality question-answer pairs within the ReDis-QA dataset, covering 205 rare diseases. We then benchmarked several open-source LLMs, revealing that diagnosing rare diseases remains a significant challenge for these models. Experiment results demonstrate that ReCOP can effectively improve the accuracy of LLMs on the ReDis-QA dataset by an average of 8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T21:09:09Z)
• GMAI-MMBench: A Comprehensive Multimodal Evaluation Benchmark Towards General Medical AI [67.09501109871351]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are capable of handling diverse data types such as imaging, text, and physiological signals. GMAI-MMBench is the most comprehensive general medical AI benchmark with well-categorized data structure and multi-perceptual granularity to date. It is constructed from 284 datasets across 38 medical image modalities, 18 clinical-related tasks, 18 departments, and 4 perceptual granularities in a Visual Question Answering (VQA) format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-06T17:59:21Z)
• SemioLLM: Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Reasoning from Unstructured Clinical Narratives in Epilepsy [45.2233252981348]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to encode clinical knowledge.<n>We present SemioLLM, an evaluation framework that benchmarks 6 state-of-the-art models.<n>We show that most LLMs are able to accurately and confidently generate probabilistic predictions of seizure onset zones in the brain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T11:02:12Z)
• Performance of large language models in numerical vs. semantic medical knowledge: Benchmarking on evidence-based Q&As [1.0034156461900003]
  Large language models (LLMs) show promising results in many aspects of language-based clinical practice. We used a comprehensive medical knowledge graph (encompassed data from more than 50,00 peer-reviewed articles) and created the "EBMQA" We benchmarked this dataset using more than 24,500 questions on two state-of-the-art LLMs: Chat-GPT4 and Claude3-Opus. We found that both LLMs excelled more in semantic than numerical QAs, with Claude3 surpassing GPT4 in numerical QAs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T08:41:46Z)
• 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)

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.