Inflated Excellence or True Performance? Rethinking Medical Diagnostic Benchmarks with Dynamic Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.09275v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 11:19:04 GMT
• Title: Inflated Excellence or True Performance? Rethinking Medical Diagnostic Benchmarks with Dynamic Evaluation
• Authors: Xiangxu Zhang, Lei Li, Yanyun Zhou, Xiao Zhou, Yingying Zhang, Xian Wu,
• Abstract summary: We propose DyReMe, a dynamic benchmark for medical diagnostics that better reflects real clinical practice.<n>Unlike static exam-style questions, DyReMe generates fresh, consultation-like cases that introduce distractors such as differential diagnoses and common misdiagnosis factors.<n>Our experiments demonstrate that this dynamic approach yields more challenging and realistic assessments, revealing significant misalignments between the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs and real clinical practice.
• Score: 23.85199484712499
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Medical diagnostics is a high-stakes and complex domain that is critical to patient care. However, current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) are fundamentally misaligned with real-world clinical practice. Most of them rely on static benchmarks derived from public medical exam items, which tend to overestimate model performance and ignore the difference between textbook cases and the ambiguous, varying conditions in the real world. Recent efforts toward dynamic evaluation offer a promising alternative, but their improvements are limited to superficial perturbations and a narrow focus on accuracy. To address these gaps, we propose DyReMe, a dynamic benchmark for medical diagnostics that better reflects real clinical practice. Unlike static exam-style questions, DyReMe generates fresh, consultation-like cases that introduce distractors such as differential diagnoses and common misdiagnosis factors. It also varies expression styles to mimic diverse real-world query habits. Beyond accuracy, DyReMe evaluates LLMs on three additional clinically relevant dimensions: veracity, helpfulness, and consistency. Our experiments demonstrate that this dynamic approach yields more challenging and realistic assessments, revealing significant misalignments between the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs and real clinical practice. These findings highlight the urgent need for evaluation frameworks that better reflect the demands of trustworthy medical diagnostics.

Related papers

• AgentsEval: Clinically Faithful Evaluation of Medical Imaging Reports via Multi-Agent Reasoning [73.50200033931148]
  We introduce AgentsEval, a multi-agent stream reasoning framework that emulates the collaborative diagnostic workflow of radiologists.<n>By dividing the evaluation process into interpretable steps including criteria definition, evidence extraction, alignment, and consistency scoring, AgentsEval provides explicit reasoning traces and structured clinical feedback.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that AgentsEval delivers clinically aligned, semantically faithful, and interpretable evaluations that remain robust under paraphrastic, semantic, and stylistic perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:59:13Z)
• ClinDEF: A Dynamic Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models in Clinical Reasoning [58.01333341218153]
  We propose ClinDEF, a dynamic framework for assessing clinical reasoning in LLMs through simulated diagnostic dialogues.<n>Our method generates patient cases and facilitates multi-turn interactions between an LLM-based doctor and an automated patient agent.<n>Experiments show that ClinDEF effectively exposes critical clinical reasoning gaps in state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T12:58:58Z)
• Prompt engineering does not universally improve Large Language Model performance across clinical decision-making tasks [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promise in medical knowledge assessments, yet their practical utility in real-world clinical decision-making remains underexplored.<n>We evaluated the performance of three state-of-the-art LLMs-ChatGPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and LIama 3.3 70B-in clinical decision support across the entire clinical reasoning workflow of a typical patient encounter.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-28T15:15:51Z)
• The Illusion of Clinical Reasoning: A Benchmark Reveals the Pervasive Gap in Vision-Language Models for Clinical Competency [38.68458713626548]
  Current benchmarks fail to capture the integrated, multimodal reasoning essential for real-world patient care.<n>This benchmark assesses models across 7 tasks that mirror the clinical reasoning pathway.<n>Current artificial intelligence models are not yet clinically competent for complex, multimodal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-25T03:33:22Z)
• Timely Clinical Diagnosis through Active Test Selection [49.091903570068155]
  We propose ACTMED (Adaptive Clinical Test selection via Model-based Experimental Design) to better emulate real-world diagnostic reasoning.<n>LLMs act as flexible simulators, generating plausible patient state distributions and supporting belief updates without requiring structured, task-specific training data.<n>We evaluate ACTMED on real-world datasets and show it can optimize test selection to improve diagnostic accuracy, interpretability, and resource use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T18:10:45Z)
• Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.91760712805404]
  We introduce VivaBench, a benchmark for evaluating sequential clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our dataset consists of 1762 physician-curated clinical vignettes structured as interactive scenarios that simulate a (oral) examination in medical training.<n>Our analysis identified several failure modes that mirror common cognitive errors in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T16:24:35Z)
• The Dialogue That Heals: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Doctor Agents' Inquiry Capability [15.649293541650811]
  We present MAQuE(Medical Agent Questioning Evaluation), the largest-ever benchmark for the automatic and comprehensive evaluation of medical multi-turn questioning.<n>It features 3,000 realistically simulated patient agents that exhibit diverse linguistic patterns, cognitive limitations, emotional responses, and tendencies for passive disclosure.<n>We also introduce a multi-faceted evaluation framework, covering task success, inquiry proficiency, dialogue competence, inquiry efficiency, and patient experience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T15:52:36Z)
• Beyond Classification Accuracy: Neural-MedBench and the Need for Deeper Reasoning Benchmarks [21.203358914772465]
  Recent advances in vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on standard medical benchmarks, yet their true clinical reasoning ability remains unclear.<n>We introduce Neural-MedBench, a compact yet reasoning-intensive benchmark designed to probe the limits of multimodal clinical reasoning in neurology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T12:20:01Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Superhuman performance of a large language model on the reasoning tasks of a physician [9.16343214099031]
  We report the results of a physician evaluation of a large language model (LLM) on challenging clinical cases against a baseline of hundreds of physicians.<n>We conduct five experiments to measure clinical reasoning across differential diagnosis generation, display of diagnostic reasoning, triage differential diagnosis, probabilistic reasoning, and management reasoning.<n>We then report a real-world study comparing human expert and AI second opinions in randomly-selected patients in the emergency room of a major tertiary academic medical center in Boston, MA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-14T14:46:18Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• TREEMENT: Interpretable Patient-Trial Matching via Personalized Dynamic Tree-Based Memory Network [54.332862955411656]
  Clinical trials are critical for drug development but often suffer from expensive and inefficient patient recruitment. In recent years, machine learning models have been proposed for speeding up patient recruitment via automatically matching patients with clinical trials. We introduce a dynamic tree-based memory network model named TREEMENT to provide accurate and interpretable patient trial matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-19T12:35:09Z)

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.