Feb 2026· Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2· pp. 10162-10173· 10 citations· ⚡ 2 influential· 45 references
Computer Science
TL;DR
A Multi-Agent Clinical Curation Framework that filters raw data noise and validates clinical integrity against evidence-based medical principles and develops an Automated Rubric-based Evaluation Framework that decomposes physician responses into granular, case-specific criteria, achieving substantially stronger alignment with expert physicians than LLM-as-a-Judge.
Abstract
The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes clinical settings demands rigorous and reliable evaluation. However, existing medical benchmarks remain static, suffering from two critical limitations: (1) data contamination, where test sets inadvertently leak into training corpora, leading to inflated performance estimates; and (2) temporal misalignment, failing to capture the rapid evolution of medical knowledge. Furthermore, current evaluation metrics for open-ended clinical reasoning often rely on either shallow lexical overlap (e.g., ROUGE) or subjective LLM-as-a-Judge scoring, both inadequate for verifying clinical correctness. % To bridge these gaps, we introduce LiveMedBench, a continuously updated, contamination-limited, and rubric-based benchmark that weekly harvests real-world clinical cases from online medical communities, ensuring strict temporal separation from model training data. We propose a Multi-Agent Clinical Curation Framework that filters raw data noise and validates clinical integrity against evidence-based medical principles. For evaluation, we develop an Automated Rubric-based Evaluation Framework that decomposes physician responses into granular, case-specific criteria, achieving substantially stronger alignment with expert physicians than LLM-as-a-Judge. % To date, LiveMedBench comprises 2,756 real-world cases spanning 38 medical specialties and two languages, paired with 16,702 unique evaluation criteria. Extensive evaluation of 38 LLMs reveals that even the best-performing model achieves only 39.2%, and 84% of models exhibit performance degradation on post-cutoff cases, confirming pervasive data contamination risks. Error analysis further identifies contextual application---not factual knowledge---as the dominant bottleneck, with 35-48% of failures stemming from the inability to tailor medical knowledge to patient-specific constraints. The code and data are available at https://github.com/ZhilingYan/LiveMedBench/ LiveMedBench.
SynTrustBench is introduced, an evidence-gated and executable benchmark for evaluating trustworthiness claims across five non-compensable dimensions: fidelity, clinical utility/validity, privacy, equity, and robustness/generalization.
A comprehensive framework for transforming LLMs into trustworthy medical specialists is presented, and the evolution toward agentic AI systems that orchestrate them for autonomous, collaborative clinical decision-making is explored.
Kiduk Kim, Jeong Min Song, Dong Yeong Kim et al.· Cell Reports Medicine· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for biomedical research and clinical medicine, yet their use remains limited by hallucinations, missing provenance, domain drift, privacy constraints, and uncertain regulatory pathways. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) offers a pragmatic alternative to full mod...
M. Enayati, Vishnu Priya, Eveline Prochaska et al.· The Scientist· 0 citations
VITA's advantages in accuracy and completeness persisted under the neutral judge; its communication scores were lower, and this results indicate that a purpose-built clinical RAG system remains competitive with frontier LLMs on an open benchmark, consistent with corpus specificity as a design variable that improves gro...
P. Reddy, C. Mandke, Suvrankar Datta et al.· 0 citations
While models consistently locate error-relevant content, they fail to produce the corresponding correct verdict on the clean counterpart and it is shown that F1 and pairwise accuracy are driven in opposite directions by the same underlying bias, so that ranking models by F1 may systematically promote the weakest discri...
We propose a scalable, validity-oriented pipeline for evaluating biomedical LLM judges when high-quality human judgments are scarce. First, we augment existing human-labelled biomedical benchmarks with deterministic, metric-grounded mutations that produce auditable preference pairs. Second, we evaluate judges beyond ag...
R. D. de Oliveira, Federico Pittino, J. Gwinnutt et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.