Clinical Language Model Evaluation

Existing evaluation methods for healthcare LLMs primarily assess factual correctness,safety, and fluency, while providing limited insight into whether generated interactions reflect culturally situated healthcare reasoning. This limitation is particularly important in maternal health, where care decisions are shaped by social and relational norms. We introduce MH-INDIC, a culturally grounded evaluation framework for maternal-health interactions in urban and semi-urban North Indian contexts that operationalises cultural behaviour through ten dimensions of maternal-health reasoning. Using a 26-item survey administered to 102 pregnant and postpartum women from urban and semi-urban North India, we evaluate ten LLMs. We distinguish population level cultural alignment from profile-level behavioural variation. Although several models approximate the human population-level distribution, all evaluated systems exhibit substantially lower variation across demographic and household profiles than the human cohort, revealing a gap between aggregate alignment and profile-conditioned sensitivity. As a downstream application of MH-INDIC, we use the strongest-aligned proprietary and open-source models to generate culturally conditioned maternal-health dialogues under zero-shot, self-conditioned, and human-grounded prompting. Human-grounded conditioning produces stronger profile alignment and dialogue quality ratings, suggesting that measured cultural profiles can improve the cultural grounding of generated interactions

Large language model (LLM) assistants are being deployed to clinicians across health systems, and judgments about their readiness rest largely on benchmark scores, most of them derived from examination questions or curated cases. A benchmark predicts performance in deployment only to the extent that its items resemble real use, yet whether benchmarks reflect the work these systems receive has rarely been measured. Here we analyze 127,833 queries sent by 6,342 physicians, advanced practice providers and nurses in 35 specialties to an institutional assistant during an eight-month roll-out. We characterize each query with RCQ-Map, a clinician-validated framework grounded in taxonomies of clinical questions and of LLM evaluation, which records its task, intent, answerability, missing information and potential harm. Documentation and administration (36.2%) and knowledge retrieval (28.9%) made up nearly two-thirds of use, and diagnosis 3.7%; more than a third of queries could not be answered well as posed. Applying RCQ-Map to 58 public benchmarks drawn from major evaluation suites and frontier model reports, which we assemble into the Clinical AI Benchmark Atlas, showed that the median benchmark contained no documentation requests and shared 31% of the task mix of real use, less than an even spread across task categories would. Benchmarks in suites designed to resemble clinical practice were individually no closer to real use than those used in frontier model reports. Benchmark scores therefore say little about how clinical AI performs on most of the work it is actually given, and evaluation should be matched to real clinical use.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon to support ambient documentation and clinical reasoning. Here we examine the impact of a failure mode shared between these two applications by assessing their sensitivity to information incidental to the patient encounter. In 576 patient-clinician dialogues, we found that frontier models inserted small-talk exchanges into 35% of notes, while mean quality scores changed by at most 0.20 points on five-point scales. In 3.7% of frontier notes, models misattributed the asides or used them clinically. In 57 mock recorded consultations, background speech from a separate patient encounter at -10 dB leaked into 48.2% of transcripts, with contamination detected in 5.3% of downstream notes generated by four open-weight models. We propose a dual encoding hypothesis of clinical reasoning and distraction in LLMs, with preliminary evidence that LLM components associated with disruption by incidental information also support clinical reasoning. These findings support evaluating resistance to incidental information before clinical use, with safeguards that prevent contamination while preserving clinical reasoning.

Depression has no diagnostic blood test. Language models promise tireless, consistent assessment, but can accurate raters disagree about individuals? We pre-registered 880 language-model raters, crossing 11 open models with prompting and scoring choices, and applied them to 189 interviews against the eight-item Patient Health Questionnaire. Model choice explained 30.0% of summed-symptom score variance, stable participant differences 10.5%. Two randomly drawn raters with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) >= 0.70 disagreed on screening decisions for 40% of participants, on average. Average over-rating governed how many were flagged, yet equal-capacity raters chose differently for about one participant in five. A locked analysis of 86 new interviews reproduced the main pre-registered findings. Exploratory recalibration with 40 labelled participants raised accuracy from about 60% to 75% and halved disagreement, leaving one participant in five decided differently. Calibration repaired much of the rater dependence without securing agreement about individuals.

Ambient documentation systems are rapidly gaining adoption, yet their impact on clinical note quality remains poorly characterized. We introduce MedConv, a multilingual dataset of 300 clinical encounters in English, Danish, and German, and use it alongside the Ambient Clinical Intelligence benchmark (ACI-BENCH) to compare Corti, a clinical AI platform, with two leading, accessible ambient scribe software applications built on general-purpose AI. We present a controlled clinical evaluation framework that combines entailment metrics with LLM-judged pairwise comparisons across eight dimensions adopted from PDSQI-9. Results show that Corti's API-based text-generation infrastructure is on par with or outperforms leading commercial scribes. We further show that Corti's configurable API provides the flexibility necessary to fine-tune quality dimensions for specific documentation use cases. We present the evaluation methodology and release a dataset to support future reproducible comparison of ambient documentation systems.

Language models can score psychiatric questionnaires from speech, but agreement with self-report may reflect the questionnaire rather than the person. We introduce psychometric representational similarity analysis, a framework for comparing the structure of speech-derived scores, self-report, item wording and theory, and implement it alongside person-level construct scoring in COMPASS 2.0. We show how similarly worded items induce covariance without psychological signal. In pre-registered discovery and confirmation analyses of clinical interviews from 275 participants, language-derived symptom geometry resembled wording more than self-report, with no structure beyond wording detected by the registered tests. Geometric agreement with self-report survived assigning participants someone else's answers, whereas person-paired scores captured distress more than specific symptoms. Complementary analyses examined counselling quality and wording structure across 34 instruments and the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework. These findings distinguish agreement about psychological structure from evidence that language-derived assessments track individual people.

LLM agents are increasingly built for medical work and scored on clinical benchmarks. Each such score, however, comes from a model running inside an agent harness, the system that controls the loop between the model and its environment. An agent's score is therefore a property of a model--harness pair. For medical agents, how much outcomes change with the harness has rarely been measured. Measuring this change, and explaining it, raises two challenges. First, a harness comparison must change nothing but the harness and be repeated across models and kinds of task. Second, comparing whole harnesses leaves their mechanisms bundled together, so it cannot show when an individual mechanism helps. To address these challenges, we present MedicalHarness, a controlled study of models and agent harnesses on medical tasks. We first build MedicalHarnessBench to evaluate agents on $107$ tasks across four domains that each test a different harness capability. Using this benchmark, we run five open-weight models under five agent harnesses, changing only the harness within a comparison, and analyze both outcomes and execution traces. To study individual mechanisms, we build MH-Lab, a controlled harness that switches off context management, planning or tool exposure one at a time within a shared execution loop. We find that the harness and its interaction with the model account for about a quarter of the outcome variance, and that no single harness is best across models and tasks. Code and data are available at https://github.com/REAL-Lab-NU/MedicalHarness.

Clinical LLMs must decide not only what diagnosis to produce, but also whether the available evidence is sufficient for autonomous decision making. Binary DECIDE/ABSTAIN formulations merge distinct non decision states and do not explicitly evaluate information acquisition. We introduce a DECIDE/ASK/DEFER formulation together with a blinded protocol that prevents models from using evidence completeness metadata. We evaluate Qwen, Gemini, and GPT on 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus. The models show substantial differences in action selection under identical evidence, with disagreement in 137 of 200 states. For Qwen, a matched targeted versus random analysis shows that selected information changes the likelihood of a subsequent autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness. Its matched DECIDE/ABSTAIN baseline further reveals a safety autonomy tradeoff: the three action policy rescues some erroneous autonomous decisions but also removes some correct autonomous deci sions. These results show that separating information acquisition from clinician deferral exposes behavior that binary abstention hides, without yielding a uniformly improved decision policy.

Large language models are increasingly used in clinical settings. However, research into the reliability and performance of these models has focused almost entirely on the language substrate, scoring what the model says. Mechanistic interpretability has found that the latent space carries a higher fidelity of representation than the text: internal representations not only encode substantially more than the output verbalizes, but the stated reasoning also systematically omits features that causally drive the answer. An evaluation of model behavior in terms of mechanistic interpretability has not been explored in clinical decision support. In this work, we extend behavioral evaluation into the latent space and ask whether clinical concepts exist as locatable, causally used representations inside open-weight LLMs. We find dedicated clinical concept centers in the latent space of all eleven open models we test. These concept centers are interpretable, firing only on their aligned clinical narratives, and meaningfully and causally drive model behavior in both constrained and open-ended settings. They are not just analytical representations, but circuits that can be utilized in clinical practice, and we explore their use from the perspective of both evaluation and performance. From the evaluation standpoint, models stay internally coherent and keep using the relevant concept centers even under adversarial role-based priming, while aligned priming improves downstream clinical performance. From a performance perspective, we simulate realistic deployment settings and find that steering models along these centers leads to meaningful downstream improvements. Finally, we conduct a blinded clinician validation and find the activation and usage of these concept centers predicts clinicians preferences.

Emergency department (ED) triage is a high-stakes prioritization task in which demographic, socioeconomic, and system-context information may improperly influence acuity assignment. Although open-source large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for local and privacy-preserving clinical decision support, it remains unclear how counterfactual bias varies across model families, sizes, medical-domain models, and domain-adapted models. We present a comparative counterfactual audit of ten open-source LLMs for pediatric Emergency Severity Index (ESI) prediction. Starting from real and handbook-style clinical vignettes, we construct paired counterfactual variants that change only one injected demographic, socioeconomic, healthcare-access, behavioral, social, or system-context variable while holding the clinical presentation fixed. Models include Qwen2.5-7B, Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct, a QLoRA fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B, MedGemma variants, MedLLaMA2-7B, GPT-OSS-20B, and GPT-OSS-120B. We measure any counterfactual shift, undertriage, overtriage, shifts greater than one ESI level, mean shift, and mean absolute shift. Counterfactual sensitivity varied substantially and did not consistently decrease with larger model size or medical-domain pretraining. The fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B showed the lowest overall sensitivity, with a 5.27% any-shift rate and mean absolute shift of 0.0534, versus 16.02% and 0.1706 for the base model. Several larger or medical-domain models showed more significant shifts. Stratified and correlation analyses further revealed clinically important directionality and shared failure patterns hidden by aggregate rates. These findings support counterfactual auditing as a lightweight, clinically interpretable framework for comparing fairness risks in open-source LLMs before clinical deployment.

Exam-style accuracy does not establish whether large language models (LLMs) reason well over clinical records. We define clinical reasoning as integrating and updating evidence across time and sources to form, revise and justify a patient's problem representation and a defensible plan. This structured narrative review maps three literatures: medical education assessment instruments, clinical LLM benchmarks published from 2023 onwards, and general-domain methods for evaluating long-form generation. We examine six dimensions: problem representation, temporal synthesis, differential and management reasoning, counterfactual reasoning, calibrated uncertainty, and reasoning faithfulness. Preprints are included and flagged. No single instrument covers all six dimensions. Problem representation and differential or management reasoning are reasonably covered, although reliability varies by instrument and setting. TIMER-Eval targets temporal synthesis, and ER-Reason assesses sequential diagnostic belief updating. Dedicated uncertainty and counterfactual evaluations are emerging, but their applicability to longitudinal free-text reasoning remains limited. Factual completeness is well theorised in general-domain evaluation, with early clinical evidence of important omissions. Faithfulness remains the weakest dimension, with one identified clinical causal-ablation study on multiple-choice questions. Existing tools should be combined through binary rubric items, separate completeness and correctness scores, case-specific importance weighting with non-compensable safety caps, temporal order-consistency checks, and chance-corrected reliability reporting. Further design work is needed for calibrated uncertainty, counterfactual reasoning and faithfulness over longitudinal free-text records. This review provides a design rationale, not a validated instrument.

Molecular tumor boards integrate genomic findings, clinical context, and therapeutic evidence to support precision oncology. As AI enters this workflow, a key safety challenge is distinguishing truly unsupported recommendations from evidence-supported options that still require oncologist review because of incomplete information, poor ECOG performance status, or other clinical caveats. We introduce OpenMTB-Audit, an open-source benchmark of 500 synthetic non-small cell lung cancer cases spanning five adversarial error categories and four safety labels: Supported, Partially Supported, Unsupported, and Insufficient Information. Across eight large language model configurations, we identify pervasive over-refusal: all LLM configurations failed to retain the Partially Supported label in 83.3-100% of true Partially Supported cases, achieving high aggregate safety scores through label collapse rather than clinically calibrated reasoning. To address this limitation, we developed MTB-AuditAgent, a deterministic seven-module framework separating evidence verification, missing-information detection, safety classification, and abstention. It reduces over-refusal to 6.7% and achieves 91.2% accuracy (95% CI: 88.6-93.6%). A two-oncologist annotation study found disagreement concentrated at the boundary between information sufficiency and treatment optimization, underscoring the need to preserve clinically meaningful distinctions.

This paper describes the approach of the UniBuc team in tackling the SemEval 2024 Task 2: Safe Biomedical Natural Language Inference for Clinical Trials. We used SOLAR Instruct, without any fine-tuning, while focusing on input manipulation and tailored prompting. By customizing prompts for individual CTR sections, in both zero-shot and few-shots settings, we managed to achieve a consistency score of 0.72, ranking 14th in the leaderboard. Our thorough error analysis revealed that our model has a tendency to take shortcuts and rely on simple heuristics, especially when dealing with semantic-preserving changes.

A large language model (LLM) can rate depression severity directly from a social media post or mark which clinical criteria the post shows and let code turn the count into a label. The latter is easier to audit because a clinician can check each marked criterion. We compare these approaches on two Reddit corpora using three LLMs (from 9B to frontier scale) and two questionnaires (PHQ-9, BDI-II), and measure agreement with quadratic weighted kappa. For the two frontier models, criteria extraction scores above chain-of-thought on one corpus only when its decision thresholds are fitted on labeled data. Neither model's gain is significant, with or without recalibrating chain-of-thought on the same labels. With thresholds fixed a priori from PHQ-9's criteria, extraction shows no gain on either corpus, even where models mark over two criteria per post. The 9B model behaves differently on a corpus from depression communities. It labels most posts severe, whether prompted directly or with chain-of-thought, while the a priori rule beats both without labels. After chain-of-thought is recalibrated on the same labels, no significant gap remains, consistent with a calibration effect. Yet higher ordinal agreement does not ensure better detection of severe cases. PHQ-9 criteria extraction misses most severe posts, and moving from direct prompting to chain-of-thought and then to extraction increases misses in nearly all comparisons. On the primary corpus, a relabeled stress dataset, a model using that dataset's own features, including word counts from the text, is not significantly different from frontier criteria extraction under the a priori rule.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings, it is critical to evaluate their reliability under realistic variation in clinical text. We study this question in clinical triage, comparing LLMs to practicing physicians under text perturbations that preserve the underlying clinical setting. We introduce a benchmark of over 6,000 clinical scenarios, 7,000 physician annotations, and 225,000 model responses. Using this benchmark, we make two key observations. First, LLMs are more likely than physicians to recommend unnecessary care at baseline, and this tendency increases under perturbed inputs. Further, we find that LLM recommendations are more sensitive to gender and tone perturbations than human recommendations. Together, these results demonstrate that LLMs can vary under clinically irrelevant textual changes, highlighting the need for deployment-oriented evaluations grounded in expert physician behavior.

Constantly evolving real-world knowledge necessitates models to be updated continuously. Especially in medicine, as clinical evidence changes over time, outdated knowledge can pose safety risks. Existing evaluations of knowledge integration focus on factual recall, offering limited insight into whether newly integrated knowledge is actually usable. Our benchmark MedKIT (Medical Knowledge Integration and Transfer) provides a granular evaluation of how models integrate and apply knowledge under realistic sequences of clinical updates. Each instance corresponds to a factual update derived from clinical evidence, paired with targeted probes that assess transfer across lexical variation, relational transformations, compositional reasoning, and open-ended operationalization, as well as locality tests for knowledge preservation. Using MedKIT, we conduct a large-scale empirical study of 12 knowledge integration strategies across 5 diverse models, including both general-purpose and medical LLMs. Our results reveal a consistent gap between recall and usable knowledge: while most methods achieve strong gains on the original update task and under lexical variation, relational generalization is limited, and no method yields meaningful improvements on compositional or operational tasks. These findings highlight a fundamental challenge in knowledge integration and position MedKIT as a testbed for developing methods that make newly integrated knowledge more consistently usable across tasks and contexts.

Most clinical benchmarks evaluate language models (LMs) on diagnosis using complete case descriptions. In clinical practice, however, patients present information in different ways, and clinicians must obtain relevant history and determine which examinations are needed before reaching a diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy alone therefore cannot establish whether an agent gathered essential information or conducted an appropriate clinical assessment. Furthermore, existing benchmarks lack professional clinicians' verification. To address this gap, we introduce KlinikeBench, a benchmark of 333 clinician-authored tasks, each providing an isolated sandbox environment with a virtual patient, clinical tools, and task-specific success criteria. More than 35 clinicians contributed to case authoring and benchmark evaluation. In an empirical study, clinicians gave simulated dialogues higher mean quality ratings than reference conversations, which is adapted from real conversation. In each task, an LM has a fixed budget of turns to communicate with the patient, ask about relevant history, request examinations, follow action constraints, and record a final diagnosis. We score these steps separately as well as together. Across 31 models and seven model families, the best-performing models (e.g., GPT-6-astra and Claude Opus 5) succeed on less than 30% of tasks, even though their diagnosis accuracy reaches 90.7%. Some models benefit from talking with the patient; others diagnose well from a complete chart but perform much worse in conversation. Overall, KlinikeBench provides a testbed for evaluating the full clinical encounter and reveals a substantial gap between diagnostic accuracy and performance in interactive clinical assessment. All the code and data is available on https://zehui127.github.io/klinikebench/

We propose a rubric for assessing expressed clinical reasoning in model responses, drawing on three bodies of work: medical education assessment frameworks (ART, SCT, Key Feature Problems and OSCE); clinical LLM benchmarks (MedR-Bench, HealthBench, TIMER-Bench, DR. BENCH, PrIME-LLM and PatientSafeBench); and general LLM reasoning evaluation research, including the Factuality-Validity-Coherence-Utility taxonomy, FaithCoT-Bench and C2-Faith. We use groundedness as a clinically oriented adaptation of the taxonomy's factuality category. The rubric brings these concepts together in a multidimensional framework for scoring free-text responses to gold-standard clinical vignettes. It includes provisional behavioural anchors, applicability rules and a separate flag for case-specific safety-critical errors. General-domain frameworks inform its design but are not treated as validated clinical instruments. The rubric does not replace case-specific reference criteria or the task-specific metrics of existing benchmarks. It has not yet been tested for inter-rater reliability, construct validity or clinical utility. Its immediate purpose is to make evaluation decisions explicit and open to scrutiny before empirical testing.

Patients often have several co-occurring clinical conditions, and the findings needed to identify and disambiguate them emerge over the course of a consultation. Evaluating clinical reasoning in this setting requires both multi-turn interaction and multi-label diagnosis. We introduce CLIMB, a benchmark in which a doctor model interviews a simulated patient to recover a ground truth set of co-occurring clinical conditions. Cases are synthesized from clinical decision algorithms and diagnostic datasets, grounding multimorbid presentations in structured clinical knowledge. Across six frontier and open models, none recovers the exact set of conditions in more than 10% of interactive cases. Diagnostic performance declines when conditions co-occur, even when models receive the full clinical record and the true number of conditions. Interaction reduces performance further. In controlled experiments, models behave like single-hypothesis trackers: they anchor on the diagnosis suggested by the opening findings, keep questioning around it, and recover a second condition mainly when a finding in view points to it. Questioning them further does not complete the set but adds mostly wrong diagnoses. We formalise this pattern with a theoretical reference model of single-hypothesis tracking. The benchmark, generator, and evaluation code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CLIMB-8340.

In-person cognitive assessment is both a test and an interaction. Clinicians explain tasks, repair misunderstandings, and adapt to patient responses, while patients may hesitate, seek clarification, or disengage. Yet clinical dialogue resources rarely label the interaction structure needed to study these behaviors at scale. We present an de-identified corpus of 33 cognitive assessment conversations with 8,250 utterances annotated for three speaker roles and 56 dialogue acts. We use this corpus to benchmark large language models on fine-grained dialogue-act classification and next-patient-utterance generation. We also test whether out-of-domain instruction data and explanation-augmented training transfer to this clinical setting. Instruction tuning produces the strongest patient-utterance reference matching and improves classification accuracy. Reasoning-aware fine-tuning produces the strongest classification results among the LLaMA-3.1-8B variants. However, even the best models struggle to separate closely related dialogue acts, showing that broad conversational intent is easier to recognize than fine-grained communicative function. The corpus and benchmark make interaction structure measurable in cognitive assessments and support follow-up work on conversational markers, clinician education, and carefully validated simulated patients. This work does not make diagnostic claims. Instead, it provides the data and evaluation framework needed to study these applications.

Jev is a non-generative "System One" model that assigns probabilities to predefined answer options and cannot answer outside them. Its accuracy and calibration on medical question-answering and case-based diagnostic-reasoning tasks are unknown. We evaluated Jev 1.13 on four medical benchmarks: MetaMedQA, PubMedQA, DiagnosisArena-MCQ and the NEJM Case Challenges. GPT-6 Sol, with (medium) and without reasoning, was the reference. The primary outcome was top-1 accuracy; key secondary outcomes were calibration, selective prediction and recognition of unanswerable questions. All 8,469 requests returned a valid answer. Jev's accuracy was similar to that of GPT-6 Sol with medium reasoning on PubMedQA (78.4% vs 78.2%;), lower on MetaMedQA (74.8% vs 82.7%) and much lower on DiagnosisArena-MCQ (59.8% vs 82.4%;) and the NEJM cases (61.8% vs 82.4%). On MetaMedQA, Jev's probabilities were the best calibrated (expected calibration error 0.063 vs 0.146), and its answers with a probability of at least 0.9 (52.9% of questions) were 93.4% accurate, but GPT-6 Sol was as accurate when it accepted a similar proportion of questions. On DiagnosisArena-MCQ, Jev's probabilities discriminated poorly (AUROC 0.645 vs 0.768). Of the 162 questions whose correct answer was "I don't know or cannot answer", Jev chose that option for 10.5% (GPT-6 Sol, 8.6%). Median latency was 0.27-0.31 s; all 2,823 items cost USD 0.08. Jev was fast and inexpensive, and its accuracy was similar to that of a frontier LLM on research abstracts but lower on examination questions and much lower on complex diagnostic cases. Task-specific validation is required before clinical use.

Multidisciplinary tumor boards integrate multimodal clinical observations and longitudinal patient histories through specialist discussions, yet benchmarks rarely capture these real-world trajectories. We introduce OpenTumorBoard, a benchmark with 611 patient cases and 19,157 discussion turns across ten specialist roles, transcribed from 12,534 minutes of publicly available tumor board recordings on YouTube. The benchmark evaluates two settings: SPECIALIST TURN, in which an LLM responds to a clinically significant question posed during a real discussion, and BOARD SIMULATION, in which it generates an entire back-and-forth discussion and reaches a consensus on therapy recommendations, surgical plans, next actions and clinical trial matching. Evaluation of 14 general-purpose frontier and medical LLMs reveals substantial limitations: the best models score 3.43 out of 5 in clinical equivalence to specialist answers and 2.78 out of 5 in alignment with recorded board conclusions. Supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning improve performance on a held-out test set, suggesting that real-world discussion trajectories can support model adaptation. Three M.D. experts review a subset of the benchmark, finding high information coverage and factuality of patient cases and strong fidelity of extracted consensus conclusions. We will release OpenTumorBoard and its automated curation pipeline to support the development and evaluation of LLMs for multidisciplinary, personalized cancer decision-making.

Large language model (LLM)-based clinical assistants are increasingly being integrated into electronic health record (EHR) systems, transforming how clinicians retrieve and synthesize information from patient records. Their safety and utility depend on rigorous evaluation, yet existing benchmarks are manually curated, costly to update, and rapidly become obsolete with evolving technological advancements. We present a scalable framework that automatically generates question--answer pairs from longitudinal EHR notes. Nineteen clinicians validate the benchmark generator, producing the Benchmark for Retrieving Information in EHRs (BRIE), a continuously maintainable evaluation dataset. Across nine LLMs and five inference strategies, state-of-the-art systems frequently omit clinically important information, particularly for questions requiring synthesis across multiple documents and encounters. Because the generator itself is validated, BRIE supports evaluations that static benchmarks cannot, including the generation of multiple answers that reflect variation in clinician reasoning for robust performance assessment and continuously refreshing benchmark content to guard against leakage. Our results demonstrate that scalable benchmark generation enables rigorous, up-to-date evaluation of clinical LLMs as they are deployed in rapidly evolving healthcare settings.

Frontier language models are rarely used in clinical workflows because the realistic, longitudinal benchmarks needed to develop them are scarce. Real electronic health record (EHR) data cannot be openly shared due to privacy, ethics or data use issues and it does not contain verifiable ground truth since the chart records only reflect what clinicians documented. We introduce Synthetic Hospital, an open, fully synthetic, fact-grounded longitudinal EHR benchmark that resolves the open sharing and verifiable ground truth barriers. Built entirely from public medical-education material with no protected health information, it comprises 1,268 longitudinal patients and 5,602 encounters, where every diagnosis, finding, and temporal relation is grounded in standard ontologies (ICD-10-CM, SNOMED CT, LOINC) and with a complete provenance chain back to its source medical education material. Synthetic Hospital is served through a simulated hospital record system that mirrors real EHR infrastructure (standard interoperability APIs, role-based access and function-calling interface). In a blinded review, physicians distinguished its records from real patient charts at near-chance rates (53%). Across 10 frontier and open models, none approaches ceiling: the best model reconstructs a patient's longitudinal problem list with a severity-weighted F1 of 0.73, level with the mean of seven physicians on a matched subset but well below the best of them (0.89), and misses roughly half of clinically relevant findings when summarizing a chart. Overall, these results highlight that Synthetic Hospital is a difficult and realistic test of clinical AI performance.

Medical Named Entity Recognition (NER) for low-resource languages remains a challenging task due to high linguistic variability and a scarcity of domain-specific annotated corpora. This work presents a comprehensive empirical benchmark evaluating three fine-tuned transformer encoders-BanglaBERT, multilingual BERT (mBERT), and XLM-RoBERTa-against GPT-4o mini under zero-shot and few-shot prompting configurations for Bangla medical NER. In contrast to prior studies that evaluated large language models on limited subsets of only 50 samples, we conduct a large-scale evaluation across the full test set of 3,179 samples, providing statistically robust and reproducible baselines. Our fine-tuned XLM-RoBERTa model achieves an F1- score of 0.5959, establishing a new state-of-the-art and surpassing the previously reported best result of 0.5848. Crucially, we demonstrate that the language-specific BanglaBERT model consistently underperforms its multilingual counterparts with an F1-score of 0.4937, indicating that pretraining domain diversity can outweigh language specificity in highly specialized clinical settings. Furthermore, we present a detailed per-entity-type analysis for this task, revealing that Medicine and Specialist categories are recognized with high reliability, achieving F1- scores above 0.83, while the Symptom category remains the most challenging with an F1-score of 0.4367 despite being the most frequent training class. Finally, fine-tuned transformer models outperform the optimal prompting configuration by a factor of 3.76, confirming that prompt-only pipelines remain inadequate for structured clinical entity extraction in low-resource language environments.

In automated clinical coding, where the label space spans tens of thousands of diagnosis and procedure codes, models are currently evaluated against a single gold annotation, treating any deviation as error. But we find when two teams code the same 110 ACI-Bench encounters, they agree on only 73% of codes (Jaccard similarity) for the same note; even after an independent clinical audit removes erroneous codes, agreement rises only to 77%. Is that gap error or something systematic? We model the systematic component as coding style $ψ$, a coder- or site-specific policy over what to code and how much to document, and recast coding as $p(\mathrm{code}\mid\mathrm{note},ψ)$, estimating $ψ$ with a 10-dimension rubric. If style were noise, conditioning on it would do nothing. Instead, across five datasets a model conditioned with a data-matching style raises ICD F1 by up to 26 points and an extreme mismatched one lowers it by up to 21. Four prompt based coding methods spanning 39-49 F1 converge to 52-56 once style is supplied (All p<0.05). Much of what single-gold evaluation charges to model error is recoverable, unmodeled style.

How large language models (LLMs) integrate patient risk with clinical cost tradeoffs remains poorly understood. We investigated how four open-weight LLMs (Qwen-2.5-7B/32B and Llama-3.1-8B/70B) internally represent cost tradeoffs, how these representations relate to clinical predictions, and whether decisions shift as predicted by the specified cost direction and magnitude. Using a public diabetes dataset, we varied 11 false-negative (FN) to false-positive (FP) cost ratios across three phrasings and examined representations and behavioral outputs. Patient risk was linearly recoverable on par with conventional classifiers (AUC $\approx 0.83$), and cost direction was recoverable in every model. However, representational shifts in cost direction tracked output changes only in the two larger models, and responses to cost magnitude were predominantly direction-agnostic. Only 2 of 12 model-phrasings showed both opposing responses to increasing FN versus FP costs and cost-correct ordering. Representationally, a direction fitted on one cost side did not invert when transferred to the other, as expected under mirror-symmetric encoding. These findings suggest that LLMs encode risk and cost information but do not reliably integrate them into cost-correct decisions. Clinical evaluations should therefore include tradeoff tests, phrasing sensitivity, and default operating points alongside predictive performance.

Triage in the emergency department (ED) is a sequential decision process that unfolds turn by turn. Existing evaluations of large language models (LLMs) for triage use completed retrospective records and report performance close to that of physicians. We implement a methodology for evaluating LLMs on sequential triage, the task of predicting a triage acuity label from a growing prefix of a nurse-patient conversation. We evaluate six LLMs at five sequential checkpoints on two corpora: 425 LLM-generated (SIMULATED) and 50 physician-authored (CLINICIAN) conversations, both labelled under the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). Every model, measured by quadratic weighted kappa (QWK), degrades from moderate-to-substantial agreement on completed records to fair-to-moderate agreement at every sequential checkpoint. Controlled perturbations show that the label at every checkpoint is anchored on the chief complaint exchanges, and prompting interventions fail to lift this plateau. Models extract clinically relevant content from later turns, yet the surprisal of the true label rises across the checkpoints. So the model fails to integrate the evidence. Three expert clinicians on the same conversations reach a QWK of 0.887-0.929, while the best model reaches 0.295. Predictions concentrate at ESI-2 and ESI-3, and models agree with each other more than with the ground truth, so ensembling worsens the failure. Deploying LLMs for ED triage based on offline benchmarks alone misses this sequential failure.

Large language models are increasingly used in healthcare communication, yet most evaluations emphasize response quality while assuming that the user's concern has been interpreted correctly. We introduce HerHealthEval, a controlled evaluation framework for multilingual understanding of women's-health communication. For each clinical case, HerHealthEval provides matched versions in English, French, and Modern Standard Arabic using six communicative forms: canonical, clinical, layperson, indirect or hedged, emotionally concerned, and deliberately under-specified. The first five express the same underlying concern and retain the same clinical information, whereas the under-specified form intentionally omits relevant details to test whether the model recognizes that clarification is needed. We evaluate a multilingual instruction model and QLoRA-adapted variants on concern classification, risk calibration, clarification behavior, parse compliance, and cross-form consistency. Results reveal that aggregate accuracy and consistency can conceal safety-relevant failures. A multilingual adaptation model reaches 0.994 under-triage in French and Arabic under language-asymmetric risk supervision. A controlled re-adaptation using source-derived, language-invariant risk labels reduces under-triage to 0.572 and 0.558, respectively. These findings show that robust multilingual healthcare evaluation requires explicit testing of register variation, uncertainty handling, and the provenance and invariance of adaptation labels.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved physician-comparable performance on multiple-choice medical knowledge examinations, but their capabilities in clinical history taking, urgency assessment, and safety remain insufficiently evaluated. We proposed Japanese Stroke LLM Evaluation, a multi-turn conversational benchmark for stroke care in Japanese, and evaluated LLM performance and safety under practice-oriented conditions. Methods: We created 10 stroke and related-condition cases and evaluated LLMs in multi-turn Japanese conversations. The LLM acted as physician, while a board-certified neurosurgeon acted as simulated patient and evaluator. Each case comprised history-taking and action phases scored using pre-specified criteria. Errors that could directly threaten life were defined as critical mistakes. The safety threshold was at least 80% overall with zero critical mistakes. Eighteen models were evaluated in October 2025 and June 2026. Results: Claude Fable 5 achieved the highest score (87.4%) with zero critical mistakes, followed by Claude Opus 4.7 (80.3%) and GLM-5.2 (75.6%). Two leaders met the safety threshold. Eleven models made 17 critical mistakes, including failure to confirm laboratory results or blood glucose before t-PA, surgery before airway stabilization, omission of cervical vascular evaluation, and t-PA outside its indication. History-taking question count correlated with history-taking score (r = 0.648, p = 0.007). Conclusions: Japanese Stroke LLM Evaluation provides a benchmark for LLM performance under practice-oriented conditions, including a cap on history-taking questions. Cases and evaluations were created by neurosurgical specialists rather than using an LLM-as-judge approach. Performance improved across cloud-based and on-premise models in 2026, with some exceeding the safety threshold. Further evaluation using real-world cases is required.