HIVMedQA: Benchmarking large language models for HIV medical decision support

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.18143v2
• Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 06:40:44 GMT
• Title: HIVMedQA: Benchmarking large language models for HIV medical decision support
• Authors: Gonzalo Cardenal-Antolin, Jacques Fellay, Bashkim Jaha, Roger Kouyos, Niko Beerenwinkel, Diane Duroux,
• Abstract summary: HIV management is a compelling use case due to its complexity.<n>Integrating large language models (LLMs) into clinical practice raises concerns about accuracy, potential harm, and clinician acceptance.<n>This study evaluates the current capabilities of LLMs in HIV care, highlighting their strengths and limitations.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are emerging as valuable tools to support clinicians in routine decision-making. HIV management is a compelling use case due to its complexity, including diverse treatment options, comorbidities, and adherence challenges. However, integrating LLMs into clinical practice raises concerns about accuracy, potential harm, and clinician acceptance. Despite their promise, AI applications in HIV care remain underexplored, and LLM benchmarking studies are scarce. This study evaluates the current capabilities of LLMs in HIV management, highlighting their strengths and limitations. We introduce HIVMedQA, a benchmark designed to assess open-ended medical question answering in HIV care. The dataset consists of curated, clinically relevant questions developed with input from an infectious disease physician. We evaluated seven general-purpose and three medically specialized LLMs, applying prompt engineering to enhance performance. Our evaluation framework incorporates both lexical similarity and an LLM-as-a-judge approach, extended to better reflect clinical relevance. We assessed performance across key dimensions: question comprehension, reasoning, knowledge recall, bias, potential harm, and factual accuracy. Results show that Gemini 2.5 Pro consistently outperformed other models across most dimensions. Notably, two of the top three models were proprietary. Performance declined as question complexity increased. Medically fine-tuned models did not always outperform general-purpose ones, and larger model size was not a reliable predictor of performance. Reasoning and comprehension were more challenging than factual recall, and cognitive biases such as recency and status quo were observed. These findings underscore the need for targeted development and evaluation to ensure safe, effective LLM integration in clinical care.

Related papers

• Uncertainty-Driven Expert Control: Enhancing the Reliability of Medical Vision-Language Models [52.2001050216955]
  Existing methods aim to enhance the performance of Medical Vision Language Model (MedVLM) by adjusting model structure, fine-tuning with high-quality data, or through preference fine-tuning.<n>We propose an expert-in-the-loop framework named Expert-Controlled-Free Guidance (Expert-CFG) to align MedVLM with clinical expertise without additional training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-12T09:03:30Z)
• 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)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• LLM-MedQA: Enhancing Medical Question Answering through Case Studies in Large Language Models [18.6994780408699]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) face significant challenges in medical question answering.<n>We propose a novel approach incorporating similar case generation within a multi-agent medical question-answering system.<n>Our method capitalizes on the model's inherent medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities, eliminating the need for additional training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T19:55:45Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• AI Hospital: Benchmarking Large Language Models in a Multi-agent Medical Interaction Simulator [69.51568871044454]
  We introduce textbfAI Hospital, a framework simulating dynamic medical interactions between emphDoctor as player and NPCs. This setup allows for realistic assessments of LLMs in clinical scenarios. We develop the Multi-View Medical Evaluation benchmark, utilizing high-quality Chinese medical records and NPCs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T06:46:48Z)
• Evaluation of General Large Language Models in Contextually Assessing Semantic Concepts Extracted from Adult Critical Care Electronic Health Record Notes [17.648021186810663]
  The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in understanding and processing real-world clinical notes. The GPT family models have demonstrated considerable efficiency, evidenced by their cost-effectiveness and time-saving capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T16:52:37Z)
• Matching Patients to Clinical Trials with Large Language Models [29.265158319106604]
  We introduce TrialGPT, an end-to-end framework for zero-shot patient-to-trial matching with large language models. TrialGPT comprises three modules: it first performs large-scale filtering to retrieve candidate trials (TrialGPT-Retrieval); then predicts criterion-level patient eligibility (TrialGPT-Matching); and finally generates trial-level scores (TrialGPT-Ranking)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-27T17:56:56Z)
• Medical Misinformation in AI-Assisted Self-Diagnosis: Development of a Method (EvalPrompt) for Analyzing Large Language Models [4.8775268199830935]
  This study aims to assess the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) as a self-diagnostic tool and their role in spreading healthcare misinformation.<n>We use open-ended questions to mimic real-world self-diagnosis use cases, and perform sentence dropout to mimic realistic self-diagnosis with missing information.<n>The results highlight the modest capabilities of LLMs, as their responses are often unclear and inaccurate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T21:28:26Z)

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.