AutoMedic: An Automated Evaluation Framework for Clinical Conversational Agents with Medical Dataset Grounding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.10195v1
• Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 01:25:36 GMT
• Title: AutoMedic: An Automated Evaluation Framework for Clinical Conversational Agents with Medical Dataset Grounding
• Authors: Gyutaek Oh, Sangjoon Park, Byung-Hoon Kim,
• Abstract summary: We introduce AutoMedic, a multi-agent simulation framework that enables automated evaluation of large language models (LLMs) as clinical conversational agents.<n>AutoMedic transforms off-the-shelf static QA datasets into virtual patient profiles, enabling realistic and clinically grounded multi-turn clinical dialogues.<n>The performance of various clinical conversational agents is then assessed based on our CARE metric, which provides a multi-faceted evaluation standard of clinical conversational accuracy, efficiency/strategy, empathy, and robustness.
• Score: 4.87216588304398
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) has recently emerged as a critical issue for safe and trustworthy application of LLMs in the medical domain. Although a variety of static medical question-answering (QA) benchmarks have been proposed, many aspects remain underexplored, such as the effectiveness of LLMs in generating responses in dynamic, interactive clinical multi-turn conversation situations and the identification of multi-faceted evaluation strategies beyond simple accuracy. However, formally evaluating a dynamic, interactive clinical situation is hindered by its vast combinatorial space of possible patient states and interaction trajectories, making it difficult to standardize and quantitatively measure such scenarios. Here, we introduce AutoMedic, a multi-agent simulation framework that enables automated evaluation of LLMs as clinical conversational agents. AutoMedic transforms off-the-shelf static QA datasets into virtual patient profiles, enabling realistic and clinically grounded multi-turn clinical dialogues between LLM agents. The performance of various clinical conversational agents is then assessed based on our CARE metric, which provides a multi-faceted evaluation standard of clinical conversational accuracy, efficiency/strategy, empathy, and robustness. Our findings, validated by human experts, demonstrate the validity of AutoMedic as an automated evaluation framework for clinical conversational agents, offering practical guidelines for the effective development of LLMs in conversational medical applications.

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)
• 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)
• Automated Clinical Problem Detection from SOAP Notes using a Collaborative Multi-Agent LLM Architecture [8.072932739333309]
  We introduce a collaborative multi-agent system (MAS) that models a clinical consultation team to address this gap.<n>The system is tasked with identifying clinical problems by analyzing only the Subjective (S) and Objective (O) sections of SOAP notes.<n>A Manager agent orchestrates a dynamically assigned team of specialist agents who engage in a hierarchical, iterative debate to reach a consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T17:31:24Z)
• 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)
• TAMA: A Human-AI Collaborative Thematic Analysis Framework Using Multi-Agent LLMs for Clinical Interviews [54.35097932763878]
  Thematic analysis (TA) is a widely used qualitative approach for uncovering latent meanings in unstructured text data.<n>Here, we propose TAMA: A Human-AI Collaborative Thematic Analysis framework using Multi-Agent LLMs for clinical interviews.<n>We demonstrate that TAMA outperforms existing LLM-assisted TA approaches, achieving higher thematic hit rate, coverage, and distinctiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-26T15:58:16Z)
• AgentClinic: a multimodal agent benchmark to evaluate AI in simulated clinical environments [2.567146936147657]
  We introduce AgentClinic, a multimodal agent benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLM) in simulated clinical environments.<n>We find that solving MedQA problems in the sequential decision-making format of AgentClinic is considerably more challenging, resulting in diagnostic accuracies that can drop to below a tenth of the original accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T17:38:53Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation for LLMs' Clinical Capabilities: Metric, Data, and Algorithm [15.627870862369784]
  Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing interests to improve clinical efficiency for medical diagnosis. We propose an automatic evaluation paradigm tailored to assess the LLMs' capabilities in delivering clinical services.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T06:17:54Z)
• Automatic Interactive Evaluation for Large Language Models with State Aware Patient Simulator [21.60103376506254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in human interactions. This paper introduces the Automated Interactive Evaluation (AIE) framework and the State-Aware Patient Simulator (SAPS) AIE and SAPS provide a dynamic, realistic platform for assessing LLMs through multi-turn doctor-patient simulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T13:04:58Z)
• 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)

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.