LiveClin: A Live Clinical Benchmark without Leakage

While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel on standardized medical exams, high scores often fail to translate to high-quality responses for real-world medical queries. Current evaluations rely heavily on multiple-choice questions, failing to capture the unstructured, ambiguous, and long-tail complexities inherent in genuine user inquiries. To bridge this gap, we introduce QuarkMedBench, an ecologically valid benchmark tailored for real-world medical LLM assessment. We compiled a massive dataset spanning Clinical Care, Wellness Health, and Professional Inquiry, comprising 20,821 single-turn queries and 3,853 multi-turn sessions. To objectively evaluate open-ended answers, we propose an automated scoring framework that integrates multi-model consensus with evidence-based retrieval to dynamically generate 220,617 fine-grained scoring rubrics (~9.8 per query). During evaluation, hierarchical weighting and safety constraints structurally quantify medical accuracy, key-point coverage, and risk interception, effectively mitigating the high costs and subjectivity of human grading. Experimental results demonstrate that the generated rubrics achieve a 91.8% concordance rate with clinical expert blind audits, establishing highly dependable medical reliability. Crucially, baseline evaluations on this benchmark reveal significant performance disparities among state-of-the-art models when navigating real-world clinical nuances, highlighting the limitations of conventional exam-based metrics. Ultimately, QuarkMedBench establishes a rigorous, reproducible yardstick for measuring LLM performance on complex health issues, while its framework inherently supports dynamic knowledge updates to prevent benchmark obsolescence.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly central to clinician workflows, spanning clinical decision support, medical education, and patient communication. However, current evaluation methods for medical LLMs rely heavily on static, templated benchmarks that fail to capture the complexity and dynamics of real-world clinical practice, creating a dissonance between benchmark performance and clinical utility. To address these limitations, we present MedArena, an interactive evaluation platform that enables clinicians to directly test and compare leading LLMs using their own medical queries. Given a clinician-provided query, MedArena presents responses from two randomly selected models and asks the user to select the preferred response. Out of 1571 preferences collected across 12 LLMs up to November 1, 2025, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-4o were the top three models by Bradley-Terry rating. Only one-third of clinician-submitted questions resembled factual recall tasks (e.g., MedQA), whereas the majority addressed topics such as treatment selection, clinical documentation, or patient communication, with ~20% involving multi-turn conversations. Additionally, clinicians cited depth and detail and clarity of presentation more often than raw factual accuracy when explaining their preferences, highlighting the importance of readability and clinical nuance. We also confirm that the model rankings remain stable even after controlling for style-related factors like response length and formatting. By grounding evaluation in real-world clinical questions and preferences, MedArena offers a scalable platform for measuring and improving the utility and efficacy of medical LLMs.

Most clinical benchmarks evaluate language models (LMs) on diagnosis using complete case descriptions. In clinical practice, however, patients present information in different ways, and clinicians must obtain relevant history and determine which examinations are needed before reaching a diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy alone therefore cannot establish whether an agent gathered essential information or conducted an appropriate clinical assessment. Furthermore, existing benchmarks lack professional clinicians' verification. To address this gap, we introduce KlinikeBench, a benchmark of 333 clinician-authored tasks, each providing an isolated sandbox environment with a virtual patient, clinical tools, and task-specific success criteria. More than 35 clinicians contributed to case authoring and benchmark evaluation. In an empirical study, clinicians gave simulated dialogues higher mean quality ratings than reference conversations, which is adapted from real conversation. In each task, an LM has a fixed budget of turns to communicate with the patient, ask about relevant history, request examinations, follow action constraints, and record a final diagnosis. We score these steps separately as well as together. Across 31 models and seven model families, the best-performing models (e.g., GPT-6-astra and Claude Opus 5) succeed on less than 30% of tasks, even though their diagnosis accuracy reaches 90.7%. Some models benefit from talking with the patient; others diagnose well from a complete chart but perform much worse in conversation. Overall, KlinikeBench provides a testbed for evaluating the full clinical encounter and reveals a substantial gap between diagnostic accuracy and performance in interactive clinical assessment. All the code and data is available on https://zehui127.github.io/klinikebench/