Measuring What Matters: Benchmarking Generative, Multimodal, and Agentic AI in Healthcare

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08445v1
• Date: Fri, 08 May 2026 20:12:14 GMT
• Title: Measuring What Matters: Benchmarking Generative, Multimodal, and Agentic AI in Healthcare
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: AI models are increasingly deployed in live clinical environments where they must perform reliably across complex, high-stakes workflows that standard training and validation datasets were never designed to capture. Evaluating these systems requires benchmarks: structured combinations of tasks, datasets, and metrics that enable reproducible, comparable measurement of what a model can do. The central 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. Most existing 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. Current benchmarks have accumulated through ad hoc dataset construction optimized for narrow task performance: frontier models achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing examinations, but when evaluated across real clinical tasks, performance degrades sharply, scoring 0.74--0.85 on documentation, 0.61--0.76 on clinical decision support, and only 0.53--0.63 on administrative and workflow tasks \cite{medhelm}. 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. Without a principled framework for benchmark design, the field cannot determine whether poor clinical performance reflects model limitations or failures in how performance is being measured.

Related papers

• MedCTA: A Benchmark for Clinical Tool Agents [47.47354499871572]
  We introduce MedCTA, a benchmark for evaluating medical tool agents on clinician-validated, step-implicit tasks.<n>MedCTA comprises 107 real-world clinical tasks with clinician-verified executable trajectories over 5 deployed tools.<n>We benchmark 18 open- and closed-source multimodal models and find that even frontier systems remain brittle in multi-step clinical tool use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T06:26:52Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• AgentScore: Autoformulation of Deployable Clinical Scoring Systems [45.88028371034407]
  We introduce AgentScore, which performs semantically guided optimization in unit-weighted clinical checklists.<n>AgentScore outperforms existing score-generation methods and achieves AUC comparable to more flexible interpretable models.<n>On two additional externally validated tasks, AgentScore achieves higher discrimination than established guideline-based scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T21:11:06Z)
• Intervention Efficiency and Perturbation Validation Framework: Capacity-Aware and Robust Clinical Model Selection under the Rashomon Effect [8.16102315566872]
  coexistence of multiple models with comparable performance poses fundamental challenges for trustworthy deployment and evaluation.<n>We propose two complementary tools for robust model assessment and selection: Intervention Efficiency (IE) and the Perturbation Validation Framework (PVF)<n>IE is a capacity-aware metric that quantifies how efficiently a model identifies actionable true positives when only limited interventions are feasible.<n>PVF introduces a structured approach to assess the stability of models under data perturbations, identifying models whose performance remains most invariant across noisy or shifted validation sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-18T10:21:07Z)
• 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)
• TrialMatchAI: An End-to-End AI-powered Clinical Trial Recommendation System to Streamline Patient-to-Trial Matching [0.0]
  We present TrialMatchAI, an AI-powered recommendation system that automates patient-to-trial matching.<n>Built on fine-tuned, open-source large language models, TrialMatchAI ensures transparency and maintains a lightweight deployment footprint.<n>In real-world validation, 92 percent of oncology patients had at least one relevant trial retrieved within the top 20 recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-13T12:39:06Z)
• 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)
• TREEMENT: Interpretable Patient-Trial Matching via Personalized Dynamic Tree-Based Memory Network [54.332862955411656]
  Clinical trials are critical for drug development but often suffer from expensive and inefficient patient recruitment. In recent years, machine learning models have been proposed for speeding up patient recruitment via automatically matching patients with clinical trials. We introduce a dynamic tree-based memory network model named TREEMENT to provide accurate and interpretable patient trial matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-19T12:35:09Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Benchmark datasets driving artificial intelligence development fail to capture the needs of medical professionals [4.799783526620609]
  We released a catalogue of datasets and benchmarks pertaining to the broad domain of clinical and biomedical natural language processing (NLP) A total of 450 NLP datasets were manually systematized and annotated with rich metadata. Our analysis indicates that AI benchmarks of direct clinical relevance are scarce and fail to cover most work activities that clinicians want to see addressed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-18T15:05:28Z)

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.