Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

MedGUIDE: Benchmarking Clinical Decision-Making in Large Language Models

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 2505.11613 v1 pith:U2LRXCCD submitted 2025-05-16 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords clinicalllmsmedguidemodelslargestructuredwhetheracross
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Clinical guidelines, typically structured as decision trees, are central to evidence-based medical practice and critical for ensuring safe and accurate diagnostic decision-making. However, it remains unclear whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can reliably follow such structured protocols. In this work, we introduce MedGUIDE, a new benchmark for evaluating LLMs on their ability to make guideline-consistent clinical decisions. MedGUIDE is constructed from 55 curated NCCN decision trees across 17 cancer types and uses clinical scenarios generated by LLMs to create a large pool of multiple-choice diagnostic questions. We apply a two-stage quality selection process, combining expert-labeled reward models and LLM-as-a-judge ensembles across ten clinical and linguistic criteria, to select 7,747 high-quality samples. We evaluate 25 LLMs spanning general-purpose, open-source, and medically specialized models, and find that even domain-specific LLMs often underperform on tasks requiring structured guideline adherence. We also test whether performance can be improved via in-context guideline inclusion or continued pretraining. Our findings underscore the importance of MedGUIDE in assessing whether LLMs can operate safely within the procedural frameworks expected in real-world clinical settings.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. MuteBench: Modality Unavailability Tolerance Evaluation for Incomplete Multimodal Fusion

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    MuteBench evaluates multimodal fusion robustness to modality missing and within-modality missing on 125000 samples from 9 clinical datasets, finding architecture family predicts tolerance better than parameter count.

  2. LLM-as-a-Judge in Healthcare: A Scoping Analysis of Applications, Methods, and Human Alignment

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Scoping review of 134 studies on LLM-as-a-Judge in healthcare finds concentration in clinical decision support and NLP, frequent use of OpenAI models with prompt engineering, and moderate-to-strong human alignment whe...

  3. Automating SKILL.md Generation for Computer-Using Agents via Interaction Trajectory Mining

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Trajectory mining produces readable skill clusters with high purity but GRPO training on them improves skill-step accuracy only from 18.5% to 20.5% and underperforms frequency priors.

Pith tools