MedProbeBench: Systematic Benchmarking at Deep Evidence Integration for Expert-level Medical Guideline

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.18418v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:37:46 GMT
• Title: MedProbeBench: Systematic Benchmarking at Deep Evidence Integration for Expert-level Medical Guideline
• Abstract summary: Deep research systems can retrieve, synthesize, and reason over large-scale external knowledge.<n>Existing benchmarks fail to evaluate this capability in realistic requiring multi-step evidence integration and expert-level judgment.<n>MedProbeBench is the first benchmark leveraging high-quality clinical guidelines as expert-level references.
• Score: 36.04538037217031
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advances in deep research systems enable large language models to retrieve, synthesize, and reason over large-scale external knowledge. In medicine, developing clinical guidelines critically depends on such deep evidence integration. However, existing benchmarks fail to evaluate this capability in realistic workflows requiring multi-step evidence integration and expert-level judgment. To address this gap, we introduce MedProbeBench, the first benchmark leveraging high-quality clinical guidelines as expert-level references. Medical guidelines, with their rigorous standards in neutrality and verifiability, represent the pinnacle of medical expertise and pose substantial challenges for deep research agents. For evaluation, we propose MedProbe-Eval, a comprehensive evaluation framework featuring: (1) Holistic Rubrics with 1,200+ task-adaptive rubric criteria for comprehensive quality assessment, and (2) Fine-grained Evidence Verification for rigorous validation of evidence precision, grounded in 5,130+ atomic claims. Evaluation of 17 LLMs and deep research agents reveals critical gaps in evidence integration and guideline generation, underscoring the substantial distance between current capabilities and expert-level clinical guideline development. Project: https://github.com/uni-medical/MedProbeBench

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)
• DeepER-Med: Advancing Deep Evidence-Based Research in Medicine Through Agentic AI [10.310030966524161]
  We introduce DeepER-Med, a framework for deep medical research with an agentic AI system.<n>DeepER-Med frames deep medical research as an explicit and inspectable workflow of evidence-based generation.<n>It consistently outperforms widely used production-grade platforms across multiple criteria.<n>Human clinician assessment indicates that DeepER-Med's conclusions align with clinical recommendations in seven cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T18:17:24Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Uncertainty-Driven Expert Control: Enhancing the Reliability of Medical Vision-Language Models [52.2001050216955]
  Existing methods aim to enhance the performance of Medical Vision Language Model (MedVLM) by adjusting model structure, fine-tuning with high-quality data, or through preference fine-tuning.<n>We propose an expert-in-the-loop framework named Expert-Controlled-Free Guidance (Expert-CFG) to align MedVLM with clinical expertise without additional training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-12T09:03:30Z)
• 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)
• MedBrowseComp: Benchmarking Medical Deep Research and Computer Use [10.565661515629412]
  MedBrowseComp is a benchmark that systematically tests an agent's ability to retrieve and synthesize medical facts.<n>It contains more than 1,000 human-curated questions that mirror clinical scenarios.<n>Applying MedBrowseComp to frontier agentic systems reveals performance shortfalls as low as ten percent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T22:42:33Z)
• MedCoT: Medical Chain of Thought via Hierarchical Expert [48.91966620985221]
  This paper presents MedCoT, a novel hierarchical expert verification reasoning chain method.<n>It is designed to enhance interpretability and accuracy in biomedical imaging inquiries.<n> Experimental evaluations on four standard Med-VQA datasets demonstrate that MedCoT surpasses existing state-of-the-art approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T11:14:02Z)
• Comprehensive and Practical Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems for Medical Question Answering [70.44269982045415]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising approach to enhance the performance of large language models (LLMs) We introduce Medical Retrieval-Augmented Generation Benchmark (MedRGB) that provides various supplementary elements to four medical QA datasets. Our experimental results reveals current models' limited ability to handle noise and misinformation in the retrieved documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T06:19:18Z)

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.