Doctorina MedBench: End-to-End Evaluation of Agent-Based Medical AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25821v1
• Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 18:38:25 GMT
• Title: Doctorina MedBench: End-to-End Evaluation of Agent-Based Medical AI
• Abstract summary: Doctorina MedBench is a comprehensive evaluation framework for agent-based medical AI based on the simulation of realistic physician-patient interactions.<n>The framework supports safety-oriented trap cases, category-based random sampling of clinical scenarios, and full regression testing.<n>The universality of the evaluation metrics allows the framework to be used not only to assess medical AI systems, but also to evaluate physicians and support the development of clinical reasoning skills.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We present Doctorina MedBench, a comprehensive evaluation framework for agent-based medical AI based on the simulation of realistic physician-patient interactions. Unlike traditional medical benchmarks that rely on solving standardized test questions, the proposed approach models a multi-step clinical dialogue in which either a physician or an AI system must collect medical history, analyze attached materials (including laboratory reports, images, and medical documents), formulate differential diagnoses, and provide personalized recommendations. System performance is evaluated using the D.O.T.S. metric, which consists of four components: Diagnosis, Observations/Investigations, Treatment, and Step Count, enabling assessment of both clinical correctness and dialogue efficiency. The system also incorporates a multi-level testing and quality monitoring architecture designed to detect model degradation during both development and deployment. The framework supports safety-oriented trap cases, category-based random sampling of clinical scenarios, and full regression testing. The dataset currently contains more than 1,000 clinical cases covering over 750 diagnoses. The universality of the evaluation metrics allows the framework to be used not only to assess medical AI systems, but also to evaluate physicians and support the development of clinical reasoning skills. Our results suggest that simulation of clinical dialogue may provide a more realistic assessment of clinical competence compared to traditional examination-style benchmarks.

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 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)
• Medical Model Synthesis Architectures: A Case Study [72.46211022258122]
  Current AI systems struggle with calibrated reasoning under uncertainty.<n>We propose a framework for AI systems that can make practically useful but formally transparent clinical predictions under uncertainty.<n>We show how an initial proof-of-concept of this framework can be used for differential diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-10T19:30:16Z)
• 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)
• PulseMind: A Multi-Modal Medical Model for Real-World Clinical Diagnosis [32.30982339390615]
  We introduce PulseMind, a new family of multi-modal diagnostic models that integrates a systematically curated dataset, a comprehensive evaluation benchmark, and a tailored training framework.<n>Specifically, we first construct a diagnostic dataset, MediScope, which comprises 98,000 real-world multi-turn consultations and 601,500 medical images, spanning over 10 major clinical departments and more than 200 sub-specialties.<n>Then, to better reflect the requirements of real-world clinical diagnosis, we develop the PulseMind Benchmark, a multi-turn diagnostic consultation benchmark with a four-dimensional evaluation protocol.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T09:17:46Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• MedXplain-VQA: Multi-Component Explainable Medical Visual Question Answering [1.4413073343064953]
  We present MedXplain-VQA, a comprehensive framework integrating five explainable AI components to deliver interpretable medical image analysis.<n>The framework leverages a fine-tuned BLIP-2 backbone, medical query reformulation, enhanced Grad-CAM attention, precise region extraction, and structured chain-of-thought reasoning via multi-modal language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-26T19:23:20Z)
• 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)
• Medical Reasoning in the Era of LLMs: A Systematic Review of Enhancement Techniques and Applications [59.721265428780946]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine have enabled impressive capabilities, yet a critical gap remains in their ability to perform systematic, transparent, and verifiable reasoning.<n>This paper provides the first systematic review of this emerging field.<n>We propose a taxonomy of reasoning enhancement techniques, categorized into training-time strategies and test-time mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T14:41:31Z)
• Clinical Evaluation of Medical Image Synthesis: A Case Study in Wireless Capsule Endoscopy [63.39037092484374]
  Synthetic Data Generation based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) can transform the way clinical medicine is delivered.<n>This study focuses on the clinical evaluation of medical SDG, with a proof-of-concept investigation on diagnosing Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) using Wireless Capsule Endoscopy (WCE) images.<n>The results show that TIDE-II generates clinically plausible, very realistic WCE images, of improved quality compared to relevant state-of-the-art generative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T19:48:50Z)
• Emulating Human Cognitive Processes for Expert-Level Medical Question-Answering with Large Language Models [0.23463422965432823]
  BooksMed is a novel framework based on a Large Language Model (LLM) It emulates human cognitive processes to deliver evidence-based and reliable responses. We present ExpertMedQA, a benchmark comprised of open-ended, expert-level clinical questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T13:39:26Z)

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.