T. Li

Siyu Zhu, Mouxiao Bian, Yue Xie et al.

With the rapid rise of large language models (LLMs) in medicine, a key question is whether they can function as competent pediatricians in real-world clinical settings. We developed PEDIASBench, a systematic evaluation framework centered on a knowledge-system framework and tailored to realistic clinical environments. PEDIASBench assesses LLMs across three dimensions: application of basic knowledge, dynamic diagnosis and treatment capability, and pediatric medical safety and medical ethics. We evaluated 12 representative models released over the past two years, including GPT-4o, Qwen3-235B-A22B, and DeepSeek-V3, covering 19 pediatric subspecialties and 211 prototypical diseases. State-of-the-art models performed well on foundational knowledge, with Qwen3-235B-A22B achieving over 90% accuracy on licensing-level questions, but performance declined ~15% as task complexity increased, revealing limitations in complex reasoning. Multiple-choice assessments highlighted weaknesses in integrative reasoning and knowledge recall. In dynamic diagnosis and treatment scenarios, DeepSeek-R1 scored highest in case reasoning (mean 0.58), yet most models struggled to adapt to real-time patient changes. On pediatric medical ethics and safety tasks, Qwen2.5-72B performed best (accuracy 92.05%), though humanistic sensitivity remained limited. These findings indicate that pediatric LLMs are constrained by limited dynamic decision-making and underdeveloped humanistic care. Future development should focus on multimodal integration and a clinical feedback-model iteration loop to enhance safety, interpretability, and human-AI collaboration. While current LLMs cannot independently perform pediatric care, they hold promise for decision support, medical education, and patient communication, laying the groundwork for a safe, trustworthy, and collaborative intelligent pediatric healthcare system.

Tianai Huang, Jiayuan Chen, Lu Lu et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in general domains, yet their application in highly specialized and culturally-rich fields like Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) requires rigorous and nuanced evaluation. Building upon prior foundational work such as TCM-3CEval, which highlighted systemic knowledge gaps and the importance of cultural-contextual alignment, we introduce TCM-5CEval, a more granular and comprehensive benchmark. TCM-5CEval is designed to assess LLMs across five critical dimensions: (1) Core Knowledge (TCM-Exam), (2) Classical Literacy (TCM-LitQA), (3) Clinical Decision-making (TCM-MRCD), (4) Chinese Materia Medica (TCM-CMM), and (5) Clinical Non-pharmacological Therapy (TCM-ClinNPT). We conducted a thorough evaluation of fifteen prominent LLMs, revealing significant performance disparities and identifying top-performing models like deepseek\_r1 and gemini\_2\_5\_pro. Our findings show that while models exhibit proficiency in recalling foundational knowledge, they struggle with the interpretative complexities of classical texts. Critically, permutation-based consistency testing reveals widespread fragilities in model inference. All evaluated models, including the highest-scoring ones, displayed a substantial performance degradation when faced with varied question option ordering, indicating a pervasive sensitivity to positional bias and a lack of robust understanding. TCM-5CEval not only provides a more detailed diagnostic tool for LLM capabilities in TCM but aldso exposes fundamental weaknesses in their reasoning stability. To promote further research and standardized comparison, TCM-5CEval has been uploaded to the Medbench platform, joining its predecessor in the "In-depth Challenge for Comprehensive TCM Abilities" special track.

Zhichao He, Mouxiao Bian, Jianhong Zhu et al.

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement is the global benchmark for transparent and high-quality reporting of randomized controlled trials. Manual verification of CONSORT adherence is a laborious, time-intensive process that constitutes a significant bottleneck in peer review and evidence synthesis. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the accuracy and reliability of contemporary LLMs in identifying the adherence of published RCTs to the CONSORT 2010 statement under a zero-shot setting. We constructed a golden standard dataset of 150 published RCTs spanning diverse medical specialties. The primary outcome was the macro-averaged F1-score for the three-class classification task, supplemented by item-wise performance metrics and qualitative error analysis. Overall model performance was modest. The top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Flash and DeepSeek-R1, achieved nearly identical macro F1 scores of 0.634 and Cohen's Kappa coefficients of 0.280 and 0.282, respectively, indicating only fair agreement with expert consensus. A striking performance disparity was observed across classes: while most models could identify compliant items with high accuracy (F1 score > 0.850), they struggled profoundly with identifying non-compliant and not applicable items, where F1 scores rarely exceeded 0.400. Notably, some high-profile models like GPT-4o underperformed, achieving a macro F1-score of only 0.521. LLMs show potential as preliminary screening assistants for CONSORT checks, capably identifying well-reported items. However, their current inability to reliably detect reporting omissions or methodological flaws makes them unsuitable for replacing human expertise in the critical appraisal of trial quality.