cs.LGSep 16, 2026

Rethinking How We Evaluate Methodological Progress in Health AI

Authors: Florent Pollet, Matthew McDermott

Abstract

Methodological progress in artificial intelligence (AI) for electronic health records (EHRs) depends on our ability to determine which algorithms work better, and under which conditions. However, such progress is thought to be hindered by difficulties in reproducibility and in defining clinically meaningful evaluation tasks. We empirically study these barriers by re-implementing 12 historical and recent algorithms within a shared evaluation framework and evaluating them on two clinical datasets, MIMIC-IV and NWICU. We compare two complementary task families: expert-authored clinically meaningful tasks and generated tasks defined from randomly sampled event codes and prediction horizons. We ask whether relative algorithms comparisons transfer across task families and datasets, whether residual task heterogeneity contains useful methodological structure, and what a controlled comparison reveals about progress over the last decade. We find that aggregate pairwise comparisons transfer strongly across evaluation settings, including from randomly generated tasks to clinically meaningful tasks and across datasets. At the same time, clinically meaningful tasks exhibit greater task-method interaction, providing preliminary evidence that task properties can help explain when particular modeling choices are advantageous. Finally, newer algorithms do not consistently outperform earlier approaches: gradient-boosted trees remain highly competitive when paired with a modern, wide and sparse representation of the EHR. Together, these results suggest that useful methodological knowledge may require less task engineering than commonly assumed, while highlighting the importance of understanding the structured heterogeneity that remains across tasks and methods.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 5, 2026cs.LG

Accelerating Reproducible Research in Synthetic EHR Generation

The generation of high-fidelity synthetic Electronic Health Records (EHR) is crucial for advancing medical research while preserving patient privacy. However, head-to-head comparison of existing generative models is hindered by disjointed codebases, incompatible data loaders, conflicting library dependencies, and inconsistent evaluation protocols. To address these gaps, we introduce a lightweight, end-to-end benchmarking framework for reproducible synthetic EHR evaluation, organized as a unified pipeline spanning data ingestion, standardized model training, and architecture-agnostic evaluation. Our current implementation targets the generation of longitudinal ICD diagnosis codes -- the most commonly studied modality in this literature -- and is built on the community-maintained PyHealth library. We reimplement and unify strong baselines (MedGAN, CorGAN, PromptEHR, HALO) under full ICD-9 vocabulary granularity, and add a lightweight GPT-2 baseline from the general-purpose sequence-modeling literature. We contribute a rigorous, architecture-agnostic privacy-utility evaluation suite that applies identically to GAN- and transformer-based generators, and report bootstrapped confidence intervals across all metrics. We further analyze the poor long-tailed performance of existing models and discuss the extensibility of our framework beyond diagnosis codes. By lowering the engineering barrier to running, extending, and evaluating under a single pipeline, we introduce a starting point for community-driven reproducibility and benchmarking synthetic EHR models.
Jalen Jiang, Chufan Gao, Ethan Rasmussen +2
Electronic Health RecordsInternational Classification Of Disease CodesReproducibility
AskPDF
May 8, 2026cs.AI

Measuring What Matters: Benchmarking Generative, Multimodal, and Agentic AI in Healthcare

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.
Prasanna Desikan, Harshit Rajgarhia, Shivali Dalmia +1
Trustworthy Medical Artificial IntelligenceReal-World Tasks
AskPDF
Sep 14, 2026cs.AI

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

Clinical AI systems are evaluated with instruments built for research settings (reference-based similarity metrics and expert rubric panels) that measure resemblance to an artifact rather than reduction of a burden. We introduce KnowBench, pioneered by Knowtex, whose unifying metric is Effort Reduction (ER): the proportion of system-generated clinical work product accepted by the responsible clinician under expert and safety review. ER is defined once and instantiated per task across the administrative workload clinical AI automates: visit notes, diagnosis and billing codes, orders, EHR chart summarization, patient after-visit summaries, and clinical decision support. In every instantiation the construction is identical: the clinician's review-and-attestation event is the ground truth, every accepted unit is work the system completed, and every correction is residual effort returned to the clinician. The primary contribution of this paper is the benchmark itself: the metric, its degenerate cases, and a reporting protocol under which ER claims are auditable and cross-system comparable. Alongside it we report an initial headline measurement from the documentation instantiation: over one million signed encounters across a production window exceeding six months and thirteen medical specialties, Knowtex's proprietary fine-tuned clinical foundation models operating inside a closed feedback architecture achieve an aggregate ER of 97.99%, with per-specialty aggregates spanning 96.8-98.9%. This release reports the protocol's checklist partially, and states which companion statistics are withheld; the benchmark is offered so that this figure, and every figure reported after it, can be held to the same standard.
Jocelyn Kang, Caroline Zhang
Clinical Decision
AskPDF