RxScribe Bench: A Multi-Axis Benchmark for Evaluating Vision-Language Models on Indian Outpatient Prescriptions

Inpatient medication recommendation requires clinicians to repeatedly select specific medications, doses, and routes as a patient's condition evolves. Existing benchmarks formulate this task as admission-level prediction over coarse drug codes with multi-hot diagnostic and procedure code inputs, failing to capture the per-timepoint, information-rich nature of real prescribing. We propose RxEval, a prescription-level benchmark that evaluates LLM prescribing capability by multiple-choice questions: each question presents a detailed patient profile and time-ordered clinical trajectory, requiring selection of specific medication-dose-route triples from real prescriptions and patient-specific distractors generated via reasoning-chain perturbation. RxEval comprises 1,547 questions spanning 584 patients, 18 diagnostic categories, and 969 unique medications. Evaluation of 16 LLMs shows that RxEval is both challenging and discriminative: F1 ranges from 45.18 to 77.10 across models, and the best Exact Match is only 46.10%. Error analysis reveals that even frontier models may overlook stated patient information and fail to derive clinical conclusions.

Everyday photographs taken with ordinary cameras are already widely used in telemedicine and other online health conversations, yet no comprehensive benchmark evaluates whether vision-language models can interpret their medical content. Analyzing these images requires both fine-grained natural image understanding and domain-specific medical reasoning, a combination that challenges both general-purpose and specialized models. We introduce ReXInTheWild, a benchmark of 955 clinician-verified multiple-choice questions spanning seven clinical topics across 484 photographs sourced from the biomedical literature. When evaluated on ReXInTheWild, leading multimodal large language models show substantial performance variation: Gemini-3 achieves 78% accuracy, followed by Claude Opus 4.5 (72%) and GPT-5 (68%), while the medical specialist model MedGemma reaches only 37%. A systematic error analysis also reveals four categories of common errors, ranging from low-level geometric errors to high-level reasoning failures and requiring different mitigation strategies. ReXInTheWild provides a challenging, clinically grounded benchmark at the intersection of natural image understanding and medical reasoning. The dataset is available on HuggingFace.

Vision Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used for tasks like medical report generation and visual question answering. However, fluent diagnostic text does not guarantee safe visual understanding. In clinical practice, interpretation begins with pre-diagnostic sanity checks: verifying that the input is valid to read (correct modality and anatomy, plausible viewpoint and orientation, and no obvious integrity violations). Existing benchmarks largely assume this step is solved, and therefore miss a critical failure mode: a model can produce plausible narratives even when the input is inconsistent or invalid. We introduce MedObvious, a 1,880-task benchmark that isolates input validation as a set-level consistency capability over small multi-panel image sets: the model must identify whether any panel violates expected coherence. MedObvious spans five progressive tiers, from basic orientation/modality mismatches to clinically motivated anatomy/viewpoint verification and triage-style cues, and includes five evaluation formats to test robustness across interfaces. Evaluating 17 different VLMs, we find that sanity checking remains unreliable: several models hallucinate anomalies on normal (negative-control) inputs, performance degrades when scaling to larger image sets, and measured accuracy varies substantially between multiple-choice and open-ended settings. These results show that pre-diagnostic verification remains unsolved for medical VLMs and should be treated as a distinct, safety-critical capability before deployment.