CareMedEval dataset: Evaluating Critical Appraisal and Reasoning in the Biomedical Field

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.03441v2
• Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2025 11:06:10 GMT
• Title: CareMedEval dataset: Evaluating Critical Appraisal and Reasoning in the Biomedical Field
• Authors: Doria Bonzi, Alexandre Guiggi, Frédéric Béchet, Carlos Ramisch, Benoit Favre,
• Abstract summary: We introduce CareMedEval, an original dataset designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on critical appraisal tasks.<n>CareMedEval explicitly evaluates critical reading and reasoning grounded in scientific papers.<n> Benchmarking state-of-the-art generalist and biomedical-specialized LLMs under various context conditions reveals the difficulty of the task.
• Score: 41.26267474136343
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Critical appraisal of scientific literature is an essential skill in the biomedical field. While large language models (LLMs) can offer promising support in this task, their reliability remains limited, particularly for critical reasoning in specialized domains. We introduce CareMedEval, an original dataset designed to evaluate LLMs on biomedical critical appraisal and reasoning tasks. Derived from authentic exams taken by French medical students, the dataset contains 534 questions based on 37 scientific articles. Unlike existing benchmarks, CareMedEval explicitly evaluates critical reading and reasoning grounded in scientific papers. Benchmarking state-of-the-art generalist and biomedical-specialized LLMs under various context conditions reveals the difficulty of the task: open and commercial models fail to exceed an Exact Match Rate of 0.5 even though generating intermediate reasoning tokens considerably improves the results. Yet, models remain challenged especially on questions about study limitations and statistical analysis. CareMedEval provides a challenging benchmark for grounded reasoning, exposing current LLM limitations and paving the way for future development of automated support for critical appraisal.

Related papers

• 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)
• Evaluating LLMs in Medicine: A Call for Rigor, Transparency [2.2445597370194834]
  Methods: Widely-used benchmark datasets, including MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and MMLU, were reviewed for their rigor, transparency, and relevance to clinical scenarios.<n>Alternatives, such as challenge questions in medical journals, were also analyzed to identify their potential as unbiased evaluation tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T16:09:25Z)
• Automating Expert-Level Medical Reasoning Evaluation of Large Language Models [26.702477426812333]
  We introduce MedThink-Bench, a benchmark for rigorous, explainable, and scalable assessment of large language models' medical reasoning.<n>We also propose LLM-w-Ref, a novel evaluation framework that leverages fine-grained rationales and LLM-as-a-Judge mechanisms.<n>Overall, MedThink-Bench offers a foundational tool for evaluating LLMs' medical reasoning, advancing their safe and responsible deployment in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T17:58:26Z)
• LLMEval-Med: A Real-world Clinical Benchmark for Medical LLMs with Physician Validation [58.25892575437433]
  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)
• AutoMedEval: Harnessing Language Models for Automatic Medical Capability Evaluation [55.2739790399209]
  We present AutoMedEval, an open-sourced automatic evaluation model with 13B parameters specifically engineered to measure the question-answering proficiency of medical LLMs.<n>The overarching objective of AutoMedEval is to assess the quality of responses produced by diverse models, aspiring to significantly reduce the dependence on human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T07:44:54Z)
• 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)
• Fact or Guesswork? Evaluating Large Language Models' Medical Knowledge with Structured One-Hop Judgments [108.55277188617035]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in various downstream task domains, but their abilities to directly recall and apply factual medical knowledge remains under-explored.<n>We introduce the Medical Knowledge Judgment dataset (MKJ), a dataset derived from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), a comprehensive repository of standardized vocabularies and knowledge graphs.<n>Through a binary classification framework, MKJ evaluates LLMs' grasp of fundamental medical facts by having them assess the validity of concise, one-hop statements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T05:27:51Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating large language models in medical applications: a survey [1.5923327069574245]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful tools with transformative potential across numerous domains. evaluating the performance of LLMs in medical contexts presents unique challenges due to the complex and critical nature of medical information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T05:08:33Z)

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.