MedEvoEval: Evaluating Continual Evolution of Doctor Agents through Simulated Clinical Episodes

In this work, we introduce LongMedBench, a real-world EHR-based benchmark for long-horizon clinical decision-making. Prior evaluations of LLM-based medical agents have largely emphasized short-context knowledge QA and tool use. However, real-world medical care is inherently longitudinal, and clinicians must aggregate evidence across repeated visits, tests, and evolving treatments. Therefore, long-horizon interaction is essential for realistic assessment. LongMedBench is constructed via a reproducible pipeline that integrates MIMIC-IV admission records and clinical notes into time-series event streams and long-context memory datasets, enabling long-horizon, multi-session interactions between agents and a clinical environment. It comprises 335 patients, with 19.72 inpatient visits per patient on average and 44.91 medical events per visit. Guided by the long-horizon decision process, we propose an evaluation taxonomy with three suites: fact-based QA, temporal reasoning, and long-horizon decision-making. This taxonomy measures how agents understand and leverage historical patient information over extended horizons. Our experiments show that while recent LLMs can make good use of explicit timestamps, they have challenges in implicit time inference; The RAG and agent memory system can improve the performance of information retrieval tasks, but the performance of decision-making tasks is highly dependent on the model's immediate context.

Evaluating multi-turn medical consultation agents requires judging the diagnostic support provided by the histories they elicit through interaction. Yet coupled evaluation lets each policy both elicit the history and generate the terminal diagnosis, so a diagnosis score confounds the elicited history with the policy's own terminal diagnosis generator. We introduce MedDDC-Eval, a diagnosis-decoupled evaluation testbed over held-out cases derived from medical records and online consultations. It applies the same frozen shared diagnostic reader to every policy-elicited history, holding terminal diagnosis generation fixed across policies and enabling comparison under the shared diagnostic reader. It reports diagnostic support, information-acquisition coverage, and efficiency. LLM-assisted semantic matching followed by deterministic one-to-one assignment makes the diagnosis-trajectory-efficiency (D/T/E) scores auditable. In a fixed-history audit across eight policies, replacing each policy's own generator with the shared diagnostic reader shifts diagnosis F1 by 2.2-19.0 points and reverses 18% and 36% of pairwise orderings on the Record and Dialogue splits. To examine downstream utility, we use standard Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a separate training-time reward that targets the same diagnosis and trajectory dimensions. Relative to its Qwen3-32B initialization, the trained policy gains 9.6 and 4.6 aggregate-score points on the held-out Record and Dialogue splits, respectively, and ablating either feedback signal reduces the aggregate score on both. Together, MedDDC-Eval supports comparison under a shared diagnostic reader and evaluation-informed policy development, while complementing end-to-end evaluation when terminal diagnosis generation is also part of the target capability.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly proposed for healthcare tasks such as clinical documentation, evidence retrieval, patient messaging, and care coordination. Yet many evaluations remain limited to static medical question answering or one-shot generation, under-representing longitudinal state, interruptions, and human handoffs. We introduce an episode-level evaluation protocol for healthcare NLP agents. The protocol separates evidence across model, agent, and simulated-workflow behavior; specifies a five-field episode schema; and defines annotation and scoring for state continuity, evidence traceability, and escalation decisions. It is instantiated as four task templates: documentation update, evidence retrieval, patient messaging, and triage handoff. The protocol does not claim to measure clinical outcomes or deployment value. Instead, it supplies a reproducible intermediate evaluation layer between static benchmarks and prospective workflow studies, with an explicit cost-sensitive treatment of missed versus unnecessary escalation.