AIPatient Arena: EHR-grounded evaluation of large language models in end-to-end clinical consultation workflows

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.17474v1
• Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2026 03:35:17 GMT
• Title: AIPatient Arena: EHR-grounded evaluation of large language models in end-to-end clinical consultation workflows
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for use in clinical consultation tasks.<n>We propose AIPatient Arena, an EHRs-grounded evaluation framework for assessing the clinical utility of LLMs.
• Score: 7.354281305130301
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for use in clinical consultation tasks, yet most medical evaluations remain static, single-turn, or narrowly outcome-based, limiting their ability to reflect the sequential, uncertain, and interactive nature of real-world care. Here, we propose AIPatient Arena, an EHRs-grounded evaluation framework for assessing the clinical utility of LLMs across eight dimensions of clinical competence. The framework integrates EHR data into patient-specific knowledge graphs, enabling multi-turn physician-patient interactions. We applied AIPatient Arena on a primary cohort of 437 patients and two out-of-distribution validation cohorts of 119 and 67 patients. We observe that LLMs performed well in medical interview questioning skills (QS; mean scores, 4.43-4.99/5), ethical and professional conduct (ET; 4.38-4.93/5), and clarity and transparency of clinical explanations (EX; 3.80-4.72/5). Performance was moderate in information integration (II; 3.19-4.21/5) and medication safety and justification (MS; 3.13-3.78/5), but persistent weaknesses were observed in handling of ambiguous patient responses (HR; 2.57-3.32/5), information coverage (IC; 2.08-3.02/5), and diagnostic accuracy and reasoning (Dx; 2.63-3.55/5). Process-based evaluation revealed recurrent interaction failures, including repetitive questioning, omission of past medical history, and inadequate handling of uncertainty. Richer conversational context improved diagnostic reasoning but yielded limited gains in treatment planning. These findings indicate that final-answer accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating clinical readiness and highlight the importance of assessing how models gather, interpret, and communicate information throughout a consultation. AIPatient Arena provides an EHR-grounded framework for workflow-oriented pre-deployment evaluation of medical LLMs.

Related papers

• Evaluating Scaffolding-Oriented Multi-Agent Large Language Model System for Clinical Interview Training [10.948633957490221]
  We developed a scaffolding-oriented multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) AI Standardized Patient (AI-SP) training platform.<n>The system includes a patient agent for simulated dialog, a tutor agent providing Socratic prompts without disclosing diagnostic information, and a turn-level evaluator agent that monitors clinical progress.<n>The most substantial and consistent improvements were observed in communication, the expression of empathy, and specific history-taking behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T00:56:03Z)
• ResidencyRL: Reinforcement Learning in Simulated Clinical Environments [53.76751756107077]
  We present ResidencyRL, a reinforcement learning (RL) method for training clinical artificial intelligence (AI) agents through simulated multi-turn clinical encounters.<n>On heldout evaluations, the ResidencyRL agent improves diagnostic accuracy by 7.0% under adversarial conditions.<n>Blinded expert clinicians validated these gains, preferring the trained agent in 87.6% of side-by-side comparisons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T17:04:41Z)
• 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)
• Beyond Idealized Patients: Evaluating LLMs under Challenging Patient Behaviors in Medical Consultations [2.337503919179969]
  We study challenging patient behaviors that commonly arise in real medical consultations.<n>For each behavior, we specify concrete failure criteria that capture unsafe responses.<n>We evaluate a range of open- and closed-source LLMs on their responses to challenging patient utterances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T07:42:07Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• A Real-World Evaluation of LLM Medication Safety Reviews in NHS Primary Care [5.167350493769989]
  This is the first evaluation of an LLM-based medication safety review system on real NHS primary care data.<n>We strategically sampled patients to capture a broad range of clinical complexity and medication safety risk.<n>Our primary LLM system showed strong performance in recognising when a clinical issue is present.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T11:58:49Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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.