The Validity Gap in Health AI Evaluation: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Benchmark Composition

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18294v1
• Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 21:31:19 GMT
• Title: The Validity Gap in Health AI Evaluation: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Benchmark Composition
• Abstract summary: We analyzed 18,707 consumer health queries across six public benchmarks.<n>Findings: Clinical composition remains misaligned with real-world needs.<n>Field must adopt standardized query profiling to align evaluation with the full complexity of clinical practice.
• Score: 0.19599274203282302
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Background: Clinical trials rely on transparent inclusion criteria to ensure generalizability. In contrast, benchmarks validating health-related large language models (LLMs) rarely characterize the "patient" or "query" populations they contain. Without defined composition, aggregate performance metrics may misrepresent model readiness for clinical use. Methods: We analyzed 18,707 consumer health queries across six public benchmarks using LLMs as automated coding instruments to apply a standardized 16-field taxonomy profiling context, topic, and intent. Results: We identified a structural "validity gap." While benchmarks have evolved from static retrieval to interactive dialogue, clinical composition remains misaligned with real-world needs. Although 42% of the corpus referenced objective data, this was polarized toward wellness-focused wearable signals (17.7%); complex diagnostic inputs remained rare, including laboratory values (5.2%), imaging (3.8%), and raw medical records (0.6%). Safety-critical scenarios were effectively absent: suicide/self-harm queries comprised <0.7% of the corpus and chronic disease management only 5.5%. Benchmarks also neglected vulnerable populations (pediatrics/older adults <11%) and global health needs. Conclusions: Evaluation benchmarks remain misaligned with real-world clinical needs, lacking raw clinical artifacts, adequate representation of vulnerable populations, and longitudinal chronic care scenarios. The field must adopt standardized query profiling--analogous to clinical trial reporting--to align evaluation with the full complexity of clinical practice.

Related papers

• Evaluating Large Language Models in Dynamic Clinical Decision-Making with Standardized Patient Cases [71.12461204050985]
  MedSP1000 is an SP-derived interactive benchmark for clinical-agent evaluation.<n>It converts peer-reviewed SP teaching cases into executable scenarios with defined SP case scripts, clinical environment contexts, and human-validated structured rubrics.<n>Applying MedSP1000 to a range of general-purpose and medically specialized LLMs, we find that performance on static benchmarks does not reliably translate to such educational scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T17:17:16Z)
• Measuring What Matters: Benchmarking Generative, Multimodal, and Agentic AI in Healthcare [0.0]
  Key challenge in healthcare AI is not performance alone, but the absence of systematic methods to measure reliability, safety, and clinical relevance under real-world conditions.<n>Current benchmarks test what a model knows; too few test whether it can perform reliably and without failing across the full complexity of real clinical tasks.<n>High benchmark scores give a false sense of deployment readiness, and the gap between performance and utility widens precisely as AI systems take on more consequential clinical roles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T20:12:14Z)
• Eligibility-Aware Evidence Synthesis: An Agentic Framework for Clinical Trial Meta-Analysis [49.83108591873481]
  EligMeta is an agentic framework that integrates automated trial discovery with eligibility-aware meta-analysis.<n>The framework structures eligibility criteria and computes similarity-based study weights reflecting population alignment between target trials.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T03:18:50Z)
• A Decade-Scale Benchmark Evaluating LLMs' Clinical Practice Guidelines Detection and Adherence in Multi-turn Conversations [60.2076951536797]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in healthcare scenarios.<n>It is unclear to which extend LLMs could identify and adhere to clinical guidelines during conversations.<n>CPGBench is an automated framework benchmarking the clinical guideline detection and adherence capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T09:00:55Z)
• Cerebra: A Multidisciplinary AI Board for Multimodal Dementia Characterization and Risk Assessment [56.62016795093786]
  Cerebra is an interactive multi-agent AI team that coordinates specialized agents for EHR, clinical notes, and medical imaging analysis.<n>It supports privacy-preserving deployment by operating on structured representations and remains robust when modalities are incomplete.<n>Cerebra significantly improved expert performance, increasing accuracy by 17.5 percentage points in prospective dementia risk estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T05:46:45Z)
• QuarkMedBench: A Real-World Scenario Driven Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models [8.050059911826338]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel on standardized medical exams, but high scores often fail to translate to high-quality responses for real-world medical queries.<n>We introduce QuarkMedBench, an ecologically valid benchmark tailored for real-world medical LLM assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-14T01:51:43Z)
• PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology [48.732366302949515]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety.<n>We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions.<n>We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T00:50:39Z)
• LiveClin: A Live Clinical Benchmark without Leakage [50.45415584327275]
  LiveClin is a live benchmark designed for approximating real-world clinical practice.<n>We transform authentic patient cases into complex, multimodal evaluation scenarios that span the entire clinical pathway.<n>Our evaluation of 26 models on LiveClin reveals the profound difficulty of these real-world scenarios, with the top-performing model achieving a Case Accuracy of just 35.7%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T03:59:46Z)
• LiveMedBench: A Contamination-Free Medical Benchmark for LLMs with Automated Rubric Evaluation [22.211535340726073]
  LiveMedBench is a continuously updated benchmark that harvests real-world clinical cases from online medical communities.<n>LiveMedBench comprises 2,756 real-world cases spanning 38 medical specialties and multiple languages, paired with 16,702 unique evaluation criteria.<n>Extensive evaluation reveals that even the best-performing model achieves only 39.2%, and 84% of models exhibit performance degradation on post-cutoff cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T23:38:25Z)
• Automated Rubrics for Reliable Evaluation of Medical Dialogue Systems [19.880569341968023]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for clinical decision support, where hallucinations and unsafe suggestions may pose direct risks to patient safety.<n>We propose a retrieval-augmented multi-agent framework designed to automate the generation of instance-specific evaluation rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T16:40:41Z)
• MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks [47.486705282473984]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical exams.<n>These evaluations inadequately reflect complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice.<n>We introduce MedHELM, an evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T22:55:49Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Improving Patient Pre-screening for Clinical Trials: Assisting Physicians with Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown to perform well for clinical information extraction and clinical reasoning. This paper investigates the use of InstructGPT to assist physicians in determining eligibility for clinical trials based on a patient's summarised medical profile.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-14T21:19:46Z)

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.