A Novel Evaluation Benchmark for Medical LLMs: Illuminating Safety and Effectiveness in Clinical Domains
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.23486v1
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 12:10:00 GMT
- Title: A Novel Evaluation Benchmark for Medical LLMs: Illuminating Safety and Effectiveness in Clinical Domains
- Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) hold promise in clinical decision support but face major challenges in safety evaluation and effectiveness validation.<n>We developed the Clinical Safety-Effectiveness Dual-Track Benchmark (CSEDB), a multidimensional framework built on clinical expert consensus.<n>Thirty-two specialist physicians developed and reviewed 2,069 open-ended Q&A items aligned with these criteria, spanning 26 clinical departments to simulate real-world scenarios.
- Score: 15.73821689524201
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) hold promise in clinical decision support but face major challenges in safety evaluation and effectiveness validation. We developed the Clinical Safety-Effectiveness Dual-Track Benchmark (CSEDB), a multidimensional framework built on clinical expert consensus, encompassing 30 criteria covering critical areas like critical illness recognition, guideline adherence, and medication safety, with weighted consequence measures. Thirty-two specialist physicians developed and reviewed 2,069 open-ended Q&A items aligned with these criteria, spanning 26 clinical departments to simulate real-world scenarios. Benchmark testing of six LLMs revealed moderate overall performance (average total score 57.2%, safety 54.7%, effectiveness 62.3%), with a significant 13.3% performance drop in high-risk scenarios (p < 0.0001). Domain-specific medical LLMs showed consistent performance advantages over general-purpose models, with relatively higher top scores in safety (0.912) and effectiveness (0.861). The findings of this study not only provide a standardized metric for evaluating the clinical application of medical LLMs, facilitating comparative analyses, risk exposure identification, and improvement directions across different scenarios, but also hold the potential to promote safer and more effective deployment of large language models in healthcare environments.
Related papers
- ResidencyRL: Reinforcement Learning in Simulated Clinical Environments [53.76751756107077]
We present ResidencyRL, a reinforcement learning (RL) method for training clinical artificial intelligence (AI) agents through simulated multi-turn clinical encounters.<n>On heldout evaluations, the ResidencyRL agent improves diagnostic accuracy by 7.0% under adversarial conditions.<n>Blinded expert clinicians validated these gains, preferring the trained agent in 87.6% of side-by-side comparisons.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-08-07T17:04:41Z) - A safety-oriented hypothetico-deductive framework for AI-assisted differential diagnosis [22.43455890575628]
We present AegisDx, a safety-oriented framework for hypothetico-deductive clinical reasoning.<n>AegisDx generates broad differential diagnoses, enforces explicit screening for dangerous "must-not-miss" conditions.<n>AegisDx improved the physician-rated composite safety score from 4.31 to 4.55 on a 5-point scale.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-07-09T01:30:24Z) - GlobalDentBench: A Multinational Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Clinical Reasoning in Dentistry with Expert Calibration [35.3851755931076]
Large language models (LLMs) hold transformative potential for medicine, but their reasoning robustness and safety in real-world clinical scenarios remain critically underexplored, particularly in dentistry.<n>Here we introduce GlobalDentBench, the first multinational dental benchmark featuring a taxonomy that encompasses 14 dental specialties across 88 countries and regions spanning six continents.<n>The benchmark comprises 8,978 expert-validated questions across three formats (multiple-choice, short-answer, and case-based questions) and assesses three progressive reasoning levels.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-23T15:53:44Z) - A Decade-Scale Benchmark Evaluating LLMs' Clinical Practice Guidelines Detection and Adherence in Multi-turn Conversations [60.2076951536797]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in healthcare scenarios.<n>It is unclear to which extend LLMs could identify and adhere to clinical guidelines during conversations.<n>CPGBench is an automated framework benchmarking the clinical guideline detection and adherence capabilities of LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-26T09:00:55Z) - PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology [48.732366302949515]
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety.<n>We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions.<n>We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-02T00:50:39Z) - LiveMedBench: A Contamination-Free Medical Benchmark for LLMs with Automated Rubric Evaluation [22.211535340726073]
LiveMedBench is a continuously updated benchmark that harvests real-world clinical cases from online medical communities.<n>LiveMedBench comprises 2,756 real-world cases spanning 38 medical specialties and multiple languages, paired with 16,702 unique evaluation criteria.<n>Extensive evaluation reveals that even the best-performing model achieves only 39.2%, and 84% of models exhibit performance degradation on post-cutoff cases.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-10T23:38:25Z) - MLB: A Scenario-Driven Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Clinical Applications [27.73095565539546]
We introduce a Medical LLM Benchmark MLB, a benchmark evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on both foundational knowledge and scenario-based reasoning.<n>MLB is structured around five core dimensions: Medical Knowledge (MedKQA), Safety and Ethics (MedSE), Medical Record Understanding (MedRU), Smart Services (SmartServ), and Smart Healthcare (SmartCare)<n>Its design features a rigorous curation pipeline involving 300 licensed physicians. Besides, we provide a scalable evaluation methodology, centered on a specialized judge model trained via Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) on expert annotations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-01-08T02:41:42Z) - A Real-World Evaluation of LLM Medication Safety Reviews in NHS Primary Care [5.167350493769989]
This is the first evaluation of an LLM-based medication safety review system on real NHS primary care data.<n>We strategically sampled patients to capture a broad range of clinical complexity and medication safety risk.<n>Our primary LLM system showed strong performance in recognising when a clinical issue is present.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-12-24T11:58:49Z) - First, do NOHARM: towards clinically safe large language models [4.4072363018342005]
We present NOHARM, a benchmark using 100 real primary-care-to-specialist consultation cases to measure harm frequency and severity.<n>Across 31 large language models (LLMs), severe harm occurs in up to 22.2% of cases, with harms of omission accounting for 76.6%.<n>The best models outperform generalist physicians on safety (mean difference 9.7%, 95% CI 7.0-12.5%), and a diverse multi-agent approach reduces harm compared to solo models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-12-01T03:33:16Z) - EchoBench: Benchmarking Sycophancy in Medical Large Vision-Language Models [82.43729208063468]
Recent benchmarks for medical Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) emphasize leaderboard accuracy, overlooking reliability and safety.<n>We study sycophancy -- models' tendency to uncritically echo user-provided information.<n>We introduce EchoBench, a benchmark to systematically evaluate sycophancy in medical LVLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-24T14:09:55Z) - Med-RewardBench: Benchmarking Reward Models and Judges for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models [57.73472878679636]
We introduce Med-RewardBench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate medical reward models and judges.<n>Med-RewardBench features a multimodal dataset spanning 13 organ systems and 8 clinical departments, with 1,026 expert-annotated cases.<n>A rigorous three-step process ensures high-quality evaluation data across six clinically critical dimensions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-29T08:58:39Z) - HIVMedQA: Benchmarking large language models for HIV medical decision support [0.0]
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.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-07-24T07:06:30Z) - Medical Red Teaming Protocol of Language Models: On the Importance of User Perspectives in Healthcare Settings [51.73411055162861]
We introduce a safety evaluation protocol tailored to the medical domain in both patient user and clinician user perspectives.<n>This is the first work to define safety evaluation criteria for medical LLMs through targeted red-teaming taking three different points of view.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-07-09T19:38:58Z) - MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks [47.486705282473984]
Large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical exams.<n>These evaluations inadequately reflect complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice.<n>We introduce MedHELM, an evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-05-26T22:55:49Z) - 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) - 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) - 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) - Clinical Camel: An Open Expert-Level Medical Language Model with
Dialogue-Based Knowledge Encoding [31.884600238089405]
We present Clinical Camel, an open large language model (LLM) explicitly tailored for clinical research.
Fine-tuned from LLaMA-2 using QLoRA, Clinical Camel achieves state-of-the-art performance across medical benchmarks among openly available medical LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-19T23:07:09Z)
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.