Reassessing High-Performing LLMs on Polish Medical Exams: True Competence or Bias-Driven Performance?

Large language models (LLMs) now reach expert-level scores on medical licensing exams, encouraging the assumption that high scores imply safe medical judgment while patients increasingly use them for health advice. We show this assumption is fragile: when misleading context is injected into questions that LLMs originally answer correctly, they abandon the correct answer. We call the ability to maintain correct judgment under adversarial context epistemic resilience, and introduce MedMisBench to measure it. MedMisBench contains 10,932 medical question items and 48,889 misleading context-option pairs spanning medical reasoning, agentic capability, and patient-journey evaluation. Across 11 model configurations, mean accuracy falls from 71.1% on original questions to 38.0% under focused misleading context, with 51.5% attack success. The most damaging injections are formal, rule-like fabrications: authority-framed falsehoods reach 69.5% attack success and exception-poisoning claims reach 64.1%. A 14-member clinical panel from 7 countries identified serious potential harm in 38.2% of reviewed cases. MedMisBench exposes a structural blind spot in LLM evaluation in medical settings: existing benchmarks measure what models know, but not whether they preserve correct medical judgment under misleading context.

Medical large language model (LLM) evaluations rely on simplified, exam-style benchmarks that rarely reflect the ambiguity of real-world medical inquiries. We introduce the CLinical Evaluation of Ambiguity and Reliability (CLEAR) framework, which assesses how decision-space presentation, ambiguity, and uncertainty affect LLMs' reasoning on medical benchmarks. CLEAR systematically perturbs (1) the number of plausible answer options, (2) the presence of a ground truth or abstention option, and (3) the semantic framing of answer options. Applying CLEAR on three benchmarks evaluated across 17 LLMs reveals three notable limitations of existing evaluation methods. First, increasing the number of plausible answers degrades a model's ability to identify the correct answer and abstain against incorrect ones. Second, this lack of caution intensifies as the framing of abstention shifts from assertive rejection like "None of the Above" to uncertainty admission like "I don't know" (IDK). Notably, just including IDK in the answer space increases incorrect answer selections. Lastly, we formalize the performance gap between identifying the correct answer and abstaining from incorrect ones as the humility deficit, which worsens with model scale. Our findings reveal limitations in standard medical benchmarks and underscore that scaling alone does not resolve LLM reliability issues.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for medical applications remains challenging due to benchmark saturation, limited data accessibility, and insufficient coverage of relevant tasks. Existing suites have either saturated, heavily depend on restricted datasets, or lack comprehensive model coverage. We introduce Medmarks, a fully open-source evaluation suite with 30 benchmarks spanning question answering, information extraction, medical calculations, and open-ended clinical reasoning. We perform a systematic evaluation of 61 models across 71 configurations using verifiable metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge. Our results show that frontier reasoning models (Gemini 3 Pro Preview, GPT-5.1, & GPT-5.2) achieve the highest performance across both benchmarks, most frontier proprietary models are significantly more token efficient than open-weight alternatives, medically fine-tuned models outperform their generalist counterparts, and that models are susceptible to answer-order bias (particularly smaller models and Grok 4). A subset of our evals (Medmarks-T) can be directly used as reinforcement learning environments to post-train LLMs for medical reasoning. Code is available at https://github.com/MedARC-AI/Medmarks