Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

LLMEval-Med: A Real-world Clinical Benchmark for Medical LLMs with Physician Validation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2506.04078 v3 pith:HFOM2IKP submitted 2025-06-04 cs.CL cs.AI

LLMEval-Med: A Real-world Clinical Benchmark for Medical LLMs with Physician Validation

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords medicalllmeval-medllmsmodelsclinicalbenchmarkbenchmarkschecklists
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in medicine is crucial because medical applications require high accuracy with little room for error. Current medical benchmarks have three main types: medical exam-based, comprehensive medical, and specialized assessments. However, these benchmarks have limitations in question design (mostly multiple-choice), data sources (often not derived from real clinical scenarios), and evaluation methods (poor assessment of complex reasoning). To address these issues, we present LLMEval-Med, a new benchmark covering five core medical areas, including 2,996 questions created from real-world electronic health records and expert-designed clinical scenarios. We also design an automated evaluation pipeline, incorporating expert-developed checklists into our LLM-as-Judge framework. Furthermore, our methodology validates machine scoring through human-machine agreement analysis, dynamically refining checklists and prompts based on expert feedback to ensure reliability. We evaluate 13 LLMs across three categories (specialized medical models, open-source models, and closed-source models) on LLMEval-Med, providing valuable insights for the safe and effective deployment of LLMs in medical domains. The dataset is released in https://github.com/llmeval/LLMEval-Med.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. MentalHospital: A Virtual Environment for Evaluating Psychiatric Clinical Encounters

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    EHR-derived standardized patients and dual-track evaluation reveal LLMs trail clinicians by 37.28 points on full psychiatric encounters, with mental-status assessment the main bottleneck.

  2. Beyond Classification Accuracy: Neural-MedBench and the Need for Deeper Reasoning Benchmarks

    cs.CV 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Neural-MedBench reveals sharp performance drops in state-of-the-art VLMs on reasoning-intensive neurology tasks compared to conventional classification benchmarks, with reasoning failures dominating errors.

  3. EHRBench: An Automated and Reliable EHR-based Benchmark for Clinical Decision Making with LLMs

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    EHRBench uses an EHR-LLM-KB pipeline to automatically create 960,067 reliable QA items spanning diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for large-scale LLM evaluation in clinical decision making.

  4. When Medical Safety Alignment Fails: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on High-Risk Medical Queries

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    MedHarm benchmark shows aligned LLMs and guardrails can still produce unsafe responses on high-risk medical queries, indicating medical safety requires domain-specific testing.