KnowBench: Effort Reduction as a Unified, Deployment-Grounded Benchmark for Clinical AI

Large language models perform strongly on medical knowledge benchmarks, but reliable clinical deployment requires agents to conduct defensible investigations over heterogeneous, longitudinal records: determining what evidence is needed, retrieving and reconciling structured and free-text data, grounding conclusions in verifiable evidence, and deferring cases that cannot be resolved reliably. We introduce CliniCARE-Bench (Clinical Calibrated Audit of Medical Reasoning in EHR), a benchmark for retrospective clinical audit: 25 clinician-validated scenarios instantiated as 750 patient-specific cases over real-patient-derived MIMIC-IV data. Systems investigate each case through a governed, logged tool environment for record retrieval, computation, and policy access, and return one of four verdicts---Yes, No, Indeterminate: Lack of Data, or Indeterminate: Medically Ambiguous---the last two separating missing evidence from residual medical ambiguity. Beyond verdict accuracy, we score patient-evidence and policy grounding, process adherence, calibrated abstention, reliability, and efficiency against case-level reference verdicts produced by independent multi-model adjudication and calibrated against Clinical Board review. Every retrieval, computation, and report is replayable, so the investigation trace is inspectable and scorable. To our knowledge, CliniCARE-Bench is the first deployment-oriented clinical-agent benchmark to jointly evaluate real longitudinal EHR investigation, claim-level evidence grounding, governing-policy use, process adherence, and calibrated abstention within a common patient-level adjudication framework. Across 16 agentic systems, four-way accuracy spans 65.3-76.1%, but raw accuracy overstates investigation quality. Defect-free accuracy, which credits a verdict only when correct and free of prohibited shortcuts, is 4.8-14.8 points lower and reorders the leaderboard.

AI models are increasingly deployed in live clinical environments where they must perform reliably across complex, high-stakes workflows that standard training and validation datasets were never designed to capture. Evaluating these systems requires benchmarks: structured combinations of tasks, datasets, and metrics that enable reproducible, comparable measurement of what a model can do. The central challenge in healthcare AI is not performance alone, but the absence of systematic methods to measure reliability, safety, and clinical relevance under real-world conditions. Most existing benchmarks test what a model knows; too few test whether it can perform reliably and without failing across the full complexity of real clinical tasks. Current benchmarks have accumulated through ad hoc dataset construction optimized for narrow task performance: frontier models achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing examinations, but when evaluated across real clinical tasks, performance degrades sharply, scoring 0.74--0.85 on documentation, 0.61--0.76 on clinical decision support, and only 0.53--0.63 on administrative and workflow tasks \cite{medhelm}. High benchmark scores give a false sense of deployment readiness, and the gap between performance and utility widens precisely as AI systems take on more consequential clinical roles. Without a principled framework for benchmark design, the field cannot determine whether poor clinical performance reflects model limitations or failures in how performance is being measured.

Objective. Clinical AI documentation systems require evaluation methodologies that are clinically valid, economically viable, and sensitive to iterative changes. Methods requiring expert review per scoring instance are too slow and expensive for safe, iterative deployment. We present a case-specific, clinician-authored rubric methodology for clinical AI evaluation and examine whether LLM-generated rubrics can approximate clinician agreement. Materials and Methods. Twenty clinicians authored 1,646 rubrics for 823 clinical cases (736 real-world, 87 synthetic) across primary care, psychiatry, oncology, and behavioral health. Each rubric was validated by confirming that an LLM-based scoring agent consistently scored clinician-preferred outputs higher than rejected ones. Seven versions of an EHR-embedded AI agent for clinicians were evaluated across all cases. Results. Clinician-authored rubrics discriminated effectively between high- and low-quality outputs (median score gap: 82.9%) with high scoring stability (median range: 0.00%). Median scores improved from 84% to 95%. In later experiments, clinician-LLM ranking agreement (tau: 0.42-0.46) matched or exceeded clinician-clinician agreement (tau: 0.38-0.43), attributable to both ceiling compression and LLM rubric improvement. Discussion. This convergence supports incorporating LLM rubrics alongside clinician-authored ones. At roughly 1,000 times lower cost, LLM rubrics enable substantially greater evaluation coverage, while continued clinical authorship grounds evaluation in expert judgment. Ceiling compression poses a methodological challenge for future inter-rater agreement studies. Conclusion. Case-specific rubrics offer a path for clinical AI evaluation that preserves expert judgment while enabling automation at three orders lower cost. Clinician-authored rubrics establish the baseline against which LLM rubrics are validated.