TCM-DiagCommit: A TCM-SD-Derived Benchmark for Evidence-Conditioned Syndrome Selection and Commitment

Medical benchmarks for language models are built almost entirely on Western biomedicine. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is a separate system, with its own diagnostic framework and its own literature, and it remains largely unmeasured. The few TCM evaluations that exist are small, narrow, and rarely paired with a human reference. We present TCMQA, an open benchmark of 38,279 questions from Chinese TCM licensing examinations, paired with 15,151 responses from 101 licensed practitioners. We evaluate 29 instruction-tuned models from 9 families, spanning 0.27B to 14.8B parameters. Accuracy ranges over 59 points, and no model approaches saturation. Pretraining data predicts TCM ability far better than scale: a 12B Western-pretrained model reaches 39.6%, while a Chinese-pretrained model an eighth its size reaches 60.8%. Nine models exceed the practitioner majority vote of 64.9%, the best by 21.8 points, and all nine come from that same Chinese-pretrained family. Yet difficulty does not transfer between models and practitioners: accuracy is flat across practitioner-rated difficulty, item-level agreement is near zero for all 29 models, and on $8.4\%$ of items the practitioners are correct where the leading model is wrong. We release the corpus, the practitioner responses, the harness, and per-item model outputs at https://huggingface.co/datasets/TechTCM/TCMQA.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate clinical narratives that are insufficiently grounded in patient-specific evidence. In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), errors can propagate from etiology and pathogenesis through syndrome diagnosis and treatment principles to prescription generation. We developed TCMClinicalReason-Bench using 2,000 multicenter electronic health record cases to distinguish case-grounded responses from fluent but unsupported diagnostic and therapeutic conclusions. Five general-purpose and two TCM-specific LLMs were evaluated in zero-shot settings. An evidence-constrained rubric assessed seven diagnostic and therapeutic components and three cross-block relations, allowing case-supported alternatives. Qwen3.7-Plus with TCM retrieval served as the automated judge, alongside parallel blinded ratings by five senior TCM clinicians on a 600-case subset. Structural completeness was nearly saturated (99.3-100.0%), but normalized content scores ranged from 40.7% to 54.1%. The five general-purpose models averaged 50.0%, versus 41.3% for the two smaller TCM-specific models. Cross-block logic consistency ranged from 60.8% to 66.8% and correlated moderately with content across cases (Pearson's r = 0.515-0.656). Deficits were greatest in prescription generation, prescription analysis, and symptom-guided modification. In judge stress testing on 100 independent cases, perturbation detection rates across the three relations were 57%, 56%, and 31%, with contradictions detected more reliably than omissions. Separating component quality from cross-block consistency localizes failures missed by endpoint and completeness metrics and identifies where clinician oversight remains necessary.

Reliable evaluation of large language models in traditional Chinese medicine remains limited because existing benchmarks mainly focus on examination-style question answering or isolated generative tasks. We developed LingLanMedBench, a unified benchmark comprising 25,620 expert-verified items across 13 subtasks and five domains, covering knowledge, language understanding, information extraction, and diagnostic-therapeutic decision-making. LingLanMedBench standardizes task formats and evaluation metrics and further incorporates synonym-tolerant clinical-label matching, empirically derived hard subsets, and decision-recognition reformulations of open-ended clinical tasks. Fourteen open-source and proprietary models were evaluated under a standardized zero-shot protocol. Performance varied substantially across domains, model families, task formulations, and difficulty levels. The leading overall score decreased from 51.1 on the full benchmark to 31.9 on the hard subsets. Prescription performance also differed markedly between open-ended generation, with F1 scores of 32.7 and 20.3, and decision recognition, with accuracies of 90.6 and 56.8 on the full and hard subsets, respectively. These findings reveal a substantial gap between knowledge-oriented performance and clinically faithful reasoning. LingLanMedBench provides a standardized and reproducible framework for characterizing current capabilities, identifying systematic limitations, and tracking meaningful progress in large language models for traditional Chinese medicine.