Towards Trustworthy Dermatology MLLMs: A Benchmark and Multimodal Evaluator for Diagnostic Narratives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.09195v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 01:39:04 GMT
• Title: Towards Trustworthy Dermatology MLLMs: A Benchmark and Multimodal Evaluator for Diagnostic Narratives
• Abstract summary: We build DermBench, which pairs 4,000 real-world dermatology images with expert-certified diagnostic narratives.<n>For individual case assessment, we train DermEval, a reference-free multimodal evaluator.<n>Experiments on a diverse dataset of 4,500 cases demonstrate that DermBench and DermEval achieve close alignment with expert ratings.
• Score: 4.942511676972086
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate dermatology diagnostic narratives directly from images. However, reliable evaluation remains the primary bottleneck for responsible clinical deployment. We introduce a novel evaluation framework that combines DermBench, a meticulously curated benchmark, with DermEval, a robust automatic evaluator, to enable clinically meaningful, reproducible, and scalable assessment. We build DermBench, which pairs 4,000 real-world dermatology images with expert-certified diagnostic narratives and uses an LLM-based judge to score candidate narratives across clinically grounded dimensions, enabling consistent and comprehensive evaluation of multimodal models. For individual case assessment, we train DermEval, a reference-free multimodal evaluator. Given an image and a generated narrative, DermEval produces a structured critique along with an overall score and per-dimension ratings. This capability enables fine-grained, per-case analysis, which is critical for identifying model limitations and biases. Experiments on a diverse dataset of 4,500 cases demonstrate that DermBench and DermEval achieve close alignment with expert ratings, with mean deviations of 0.251 and 0.117 (out of 5), respectively, providing reliable measurement of diagnostic ability and trustworthiness across different multimodal LLMs.

Related papers

• MedReaMM: Evaluating Large Multimodal Models on Expert-Level Clinical Diagnostic Synthesis [61.266743965495884]
  We introduce MedReaMM, a benchmark designed to evaluate models' ability to synthesize heterogeneous clinical evidence.<n>MedReaMM comprises 625 expert-validated cases with an average of 2.79 medical images per case and a total of 1,042 standardized diagnoses annotated with ICD-11 codes.<n>We evaluate 23 Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) and find that most achieve diagnostic accuracy scores below 50%, underscoring a substantial gap in multimodal diagnostic synthesis capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T09:37:53Z)
• Evaluating Multi-Turn Multimodal Diagnostic Reasoning on Challenging Real-World Clinical Cases [59.5328455571863]
  ClinMM-Bench is the largest multi-turn multimodal clinical diagnostic evaluation benchmark to date.<n>It contains 1,089 challenging real-world clinical cases and 3,760 medical images across eight specialties.<n> proprietary models achieved the highest overall diagnostic accuracy, but the proportion of completely correct diagnoses remained limited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T16:19:03Z)
• Mind the Rarities: Can Rare Skin Diseases Be Reliably Diagnosed via Diagnostic Reasoning? [31.103598483020857]
  Large vision-language models (LVLMs) demonstrate strong performance in dermatology.<n> evaluating diagnostic reasoning for rare conditions remains largely unexplored.<n>Our dataset contains 26,030 multi-modal image-text pairs and 6,354 clinically challenging cases.<n> Benchmarking 22 leading LVLMs exposes significant deficiencies across diagnosis accuracy, differential diagnosis, and clinical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T02:25:36Z)
• CURE: A Multimodal Benchmark for Clinical Understanding and Retrieval Evaluation [15.226811873305072]
  We introduce the Clinical Understanding and Retrieval Evaluation benchmark.<n>CURE evaluates reasoning and retrieval under controlled evidence settings.<n>We evaluate state-of-the-art MLLMs across distinct evidence-gathering paradigms in both closed-ended and open-ended diagnosis tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-28T02:56:18Z)
• When Metrics Disagree: Automatic Similarity vs. LLM-as-a-Judge for Clinical Dialogue Evaluation [18.338933046286257]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly employed to address diverse problems, including medical queries.<n>LLMs often perform poorly in medical contexts, potentially leading to harmful misguidance for users.<n>This paper focuses on fine-tuning the Llama 2 7B, a transformer-based, decoder-only model, using transcripts from real patient-doctor interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T21:09:43Z)
• A Vision-Language Foundation Model for Zero-shot Clinical Collaboration and Automated Concept Discovery in Dermatology [31.639593207459058]
  We introduce DermFM-Zero, a dermatology vision-language foundation model trained via masked latent modelling and contrastive learning.<n>We evaluated it across 20 benchmarks spanning zero-shot diagnosis and multimodal retrieval, achieving state-of-the-art performance without task-specific adaptation.<n>These findings demonstrate that a foundation model can provide effective, safe, and transparent zero-shot clinical decision support.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T08:14:20Z)
• 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)
• MedDialogRubrics: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Evaluation Framework for Multi-turn Medical Consultations in Large Language Models [15.91764739198419]
  We present MedDialogRubrics, a novel benchmark comprising 5,200 synthetically constructed patient cases and over 60,000 fine-grained evaluation rubrics.<n>Our framework employs a multi-agent system to synthesize realistic patient records and chief complaints without accessing real-world electronic health records.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T13:56:33Z)
• 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)
• From Scores to Steps: Diagnosing and Improving LLM Performance in Evidence-Based Medical Calculations [45.414878840652115]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising performance on medical benchmarks.<n>However, their ability to perform medical calculations remains underexplored and poorly evaluated.<n>In this work, we revisit medical calculation evaluation with a stronger focus on clinical trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T09:10:26Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking and Explaining Deep Learning Cortical Lesion MRI Segmentation in Multiple Sclerosis [28.192924379673862]
  Cortical lesions (CLs) have emerged as valuable biomarkers in multiple sclerosis (MS)<n>We propose a comprehensive benchmark of CL detection and segmentation in MRI.<n>We rely on the self-configuring nnU-Net framework, designed for medical imaging segmentation, and propose adaptations tailored to the improved CL detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-16T09:56:11Z)
• 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)
• GEMA-Score: Granular Explainable Multi-Agent Scoring Framework for Radiology Report Evaluation [7.838068874909676]
  Granular Explainable Multi-Agent Score (GEMA-Score) conducts both objective and subjective evaluation through a large language model-based multi-agent workflow.<n>GEMA-Score achieves the highest correlation with human expert evaluations on a public dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T11:42:22Z)
• 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)
• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs)<n>MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts.<n>It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• LMMs-Eval: Reality Check on the Evaluation of Large Multimodal Models [71.8065384742686]
  LMMS-EVAL is a unified and standardized multimodal benchmark framework with over 50 tasks and more than 10 models.<n>LMMS-EVAL LITE is a pruned evaluation toolkit that emphasizes both coverage and efficiency.<n>Multimodal LIVEBENCH utilizes continuously updating news and online forums to assess models' generalization abilities in the wild.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T17:51:53Z)

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.