MRI-Eval: A Tiered Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Performance on MRI Physics and GE Scanner Operations Knowledge

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown strong performance on public medical benchmarks, yet existing evaluations often remain weak proxies for clinical use, relying on isolated inputs and simplified recognition-style tasks. We introduce CardioLens, a leakage-resistant evaluation testbed for multi-sequence Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR), constructed from private hospital archives through a rigorous report-to-QA construction and verification pipeline. CardioLens contains 473,896 slices and 13,494 verified QA pairs across 4D Cine, LGE, perfusion, and T2-weighted imaging, and evaluates three stages of CMR interpretation: image understanding, report generation, and disease diagnosis. Across 24 state-of-the-art MLLMs, CardioLens reveals a substantial clinical reality gap: models perform poorly overall, with performance degrading along the real CMR workflow. Confusion analysis further shows a category-collapse failure mode, where models default to frequent abnormal categories rather than distinguishing clinically distinct findings. To rule out MLLM-compatible input construction as the primary cause, we compare random, clinically motivated, and data-driven slice selection protocols under different slice budgets; performance changes only marginally, typically by about 1%. Explicit reasoning prompts also fail to rescue performance, often making models more conservative rather than improving visual evidence use. These results show that current MLLMs remain far from reliable CMR interpretation, where clinical decisions require integrating distributed evidence across sequences, views, and temporal phases. CardioLens provides a clinically grounded testbed for developing next-generation MLLMs toward real-world clinical deployment.

We present NeuroQA, a large-scale benchmark for visual question answering in 3D brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with 56,953 QA pairs from 12,977 subjects across 12 datasets. It spans ages 5-104 and five clinical domains: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, tumors, white matter disease, and neurodevelopment. Unlike prior medical Visual Question Answering (VQA) efforts that operate on 2D slices or rely on narrow diagnostic labels, NeuroQA pairs every item with a full 3D volume. It evaluates 11 clinically grounded reasoning skills across Yes/No, multiple-choice, and open-ended formats. Of the 203 templates, 131 are image-grounded (answerable from a 3-plane viewer) and 72 are image-informed (ground truth from quantitative volumetry or clinical instruments). To remove text-only shortcuts, we apply answer-distribution refinement, reducing closed-format text-only accuracy from $>$80% to 44.6%; image necessity is assessed separately through an image-grounding protocol released with the benchmark. A 38-rule deterministic pipeline and two rounds of expert review verify every QA pair against FreeSurfer measurements, metadata, or radiology report fields, with zero same-subject contradictions across templates. We conduct a clinician evaluation in which two clinicians independently assess 100 frozen test items on a three-plane viewer. On closed-format (Yes/No + multiple-choice) test-public items, the best zero-shot vision-language model and a supervised 3D CNN baseline reach 47.5% and 43.7% accuracy respectively, both below the 49.4% text-only majority-template floor. NeuroQA adopts a two-tier release with public QA pairs for open-access datasets and reproducible generation scripts for datasets restricted by data use agreements (DUAs), plus subject-level splits, a held-out private test set, and an online leaderboard.

Open-response evaluation provides stronger clinical validity than multiple-choice benchmarks but creates a scoring bottleneck that motivates automated LLM-asa-Judge approaches. Whether such evaluators replicate clinical calibration and caution, however, remains untested. We introduce MedQADE, the first standardised open-response clinical benchmark for German, a major clinical language lacking native evaluation infrastructure, comprising 3,800 items annotated by ten practising physicians and nine Large Language Model (LLM) evaluators. The top-performing evaluator model, Gemini 3 Flash, reached alignment consistent with the physician ceiling (\k{appa} = 0.694 vs. \k{appa} = 0.709), though wide confidence intervals limit interpretation. Despite this statistical alignment, automated evaluators exhibited near-absent clinical metacognition: physicians scaled abstention with item difficulty, while frontier models assigned definitive scores in every case. We additionally quantified systematic lineage-dependent biases, where models preferentially scored architectural siblings, an effect independent of language. These results show that statistical alignment does not ensure clinical caution, and that evaluator independence requires explicit verification.