Doctorina MedBench: A Dialogue-Based Benchmark and Evaluation Framework for Agent-Based Medical AI

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for health-related decision support. Yet most evaluations treat diagnosis as a single-shot task with complete information provided upfront, often as a multiple-choice selection. This diverges from clinical practice, where diagnosis is interactive and open-ended, involving sequential hypothesis refinement through targeted questioning. We address this gap. We build MeDxBench, a large-scale benchmark of 4,421 clinical cases across 20 specialties. We further propose MeDxAgent, a multi-agent consultation system for interactive diagnosis, and systematically study its prompt-, flow- and agent-level design choices. MeDxAgent achieves a 10.3% accuracy gain over the baseline on MeDxBench, closing 52.3% of the gap to a full-information oracle. We find that specific design choices: collecting demographics first, passing summarized dialogue for diagnosis, and feeding candidate diagnoses for targeted questioning, improve accuracy, mirroring how physicians reason, though their effect emerges fully only in combination. Code and dataset will be released upon publication.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various specialist domains and have been integrated into high-stakes areas such as medicine. However, as existing medical-related benchmarks rarely stress-test the long-context memory, interference robustness, and safety defense required in practice. To bridge this gap, we introduce MedMT-Bench, a challenging medical multi-turn instruction following benchmark that simulates the entire diagnosis and treatment process. We construct the benchmark via scene-by-scene data synthesis refined by manual expert editing, yielding 400 test cases that are highly consistent with real-world application scenarios. Each test case has an average of 22 rounds (maximum of 52 rounds), covering 5 types of difficult instruction following issues. For evaluation, we propose an LLM-as-judge protocol with instance-level rubrics and atomic test points, validated against expert annotations with a human-LLM agreement of 91.94%. We test 17 frontier models, all of which underperform on MedMT-Bench (overall accuracy below 60.00%), with the best model reaching 59.75%. MedMT-Bench can be an essential tool for driving future research towards safer and more reliable medical AI. The benchmark is available in https://openreview.net/attachment?id=aKyBCsPOHB&name=supplementary_material

Health AI is evolving from answering questions to agentic systems that converse with patients, reason about health records, and act on their behalf. Primary care guards against diagnostic errors and unsafe care; agents assisting in this domain warrant evaluation against the same risks. Current benchmarks focus on medical knowledge, assessed through isolated question-answering or clinician-facing tasks. PatientAgentBench benchmarks patient-facing agentic healthcare; it evaluates a foundation model, wrapped in an agent with a sandbox of healthcare tools, conversing with a simulated patient. Each conversation is scored by an LLM-as-a-Jury across six dimensions via over a hundred conversation-agnostic, clinician-grounded criteria. To validate alignment, licensed clinicians annotated shared conversations, yielding 79-93% adjacent agreement between jury and expert raters, on par with or exceeding clinician inter-rater agreement. We benchmarked 10 models across four families on the same 1,200 scenarios and found clinical gaps. Triage quality is the most discriminating dimension: pass rates rise from 32% for the weakest models to 88% for the strongest, with agents often acting on administrative requests without clinical screening. Clinical safety and workflow accuracy follow the same pattern: the weakest models fail often, fabricating unexecuted actions, while frontier models fail on only 1-3% of cases, from unverified tool outputs and omitted crisis resources in an emergency. More capable models narrow these gaps but do not close them; the strongest scores only 4.25 of 5 overall. These failures surface only in sustained, tool-using conversations against realistic patient records, confirming that static benchmarks are insufficient as healthcare agentic systems gain autonomy. We release the framework as a reproducible, clinician-validated evaluation standard to help the field close this gap.