Beyond the Leaderboard: Rethinking Medical Benchmarks for Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.04325v1
• Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2025 11:11:40 GMT
• Title: Beyond the Leaderboard: Rethinking Medical Benchmarks for Large Language Models
• Authors: Zizhan Ma, Wenxuan Wang, Guo Yu, Yiu-Fai Cheung, Meidan Ding, Jie Liu, Wenting Chen, Linlin Shen,
• Abstract summary: We introduce MedCheck, the first lifecycle-oriented assessment framework specifically designed for medical benchmarks.<n>Our framework deconstructs a benchmark's development into five continuous stages, from design to governance, and provides a comprehensive checklist of 46 medically-tailored criteria.<n>Our analysis uncovers widespread, systemic issues, including a profound disconnect from clinical practice, a crisis of data integrity due to unmitigated contamination risks, and a systematic neglect of safety-critical evaluation dimensions like model robustness and uncertainty awareness.
• Score: 46.81512544528928
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show significant potential in healthcare, prompting numerous benchmarks to evaluate their capabilities. However, concerns persist regarding the reliability of these benchmarks, which often lack clinical fidelity, robust data management, and safety-oriented evaluation metrics. To address these shortcomings, we introduce MedCheck, the first lifecycle-oriented assessment framework specifically designed for medical benchmarks. Our framework deconstructs a benchmark's development into five continuous stages, from design to governance, and provides a comprehensive checklist of 46 medically-tailored criteria. Using MedCheck, we conducted an in-depth empirical evaluation of 53 medical LLM benchmarks. Our analysis uncovers widespread, systemic issues, including a profound disconnect from clinical practice, a crisis of data integrity due to unmitigated contamination risks, and a systematic neglect of safety-critical evaluation dimensions like model robustness and uncertainty awareness. Based on these findings, MedCheck serves as both a diagnostic tool for existing benchmarks and an actionable guideline to foster a more standardized, reliable, and transparent approach to evaluating AI in healthcare.

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)
• From Feedback to Checklists: Grounded Evaluation of AI-Generated Clinical Notes [26.750112195124284]
  We propose a pipeline that distills real user feedback into structured checklists for note evaluation.<n>Using deidentified data from over 21,000 clinical encounters, we show that our feedback-derived checklist outperforms baseline approaches.<n>In offline research settings, the checklist can help identify notes likely to fall below our chosen quality thresholds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-23T17:28:31Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• LLMEval-Med: A Real-world Clinical Benchmark for Medical LLMs with Physician Validation [38.02853540388593]
  evaluating large language models (LLMs) in medicine is crucial because medical applications require high accuracy with little room for error.<n>We present LLMEval-Med, a new benchmark covering five core medical areas, including 2,996 questions created from real-world electronic health records and expert-designed clinical scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T15:43:14Z)
• Trustworthy Medical Question Answering: An Evaluation-Centric Survey [36.06747842975472]
  We systematically examine six key dimensions of trustworthiness in medical question-answering systems.<n>We analyze evaluation-guided techniques that drive model improvements.<n>We propose future research directions to advance the safe, reliable, and transparent deployment of LLM-powered medical QA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T07:48:10Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• A Spectrum Evaluation Benchmark for Medical Multi-Modal Large Language Models [57.88111980149541]
  We introduce Asclepius, a novel Med-MLLM benchmark that assesses Med-MLLMs in terms of distinct medical specialties and different diagnostic capacities.<n>Grounded in 3 proposed core principles, Asclepius ensures a comprehensive evaluation by encompassing 15 medical specialties.<n>We also provide an in-depth analysis of 6 Med-MLLMs and compare them with 3 human specialists.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T08:04:23Z)

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.