Eric Topol

Eric Wu, Kevin Wu, Jason Hom et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly central to clinician workflows, spanning clinical decision support, medical education, and patient communication. However, current evaluation methods for medical LLMs rely heavily on static, templated benchmarks that fail to capture the complexity and dynamics of real-world clinical practice, creating a dissonance between benchmark performance and clinical utility. To address these limitations, we present MedArena, an interactive evaluation platform that enables clinicians to directly test and compare leading LLMs using their own medical queries. Given a clinician-provided query, MedArena presents responses from two randomly selected models and asks the user to select the preferred response. Out of 1571 preferences collected across 12 LLMs up to November 1, 2025, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-4o were the top three models by Bradley-Terry rating. Only one-third of clinician-submitted questions resembled factual recall tasks (e.g., MedQA), whereas the majority addressed topics such as treatment selection, clinical documentation, or patient communication, with ~20% involving multi-turn conversations. Additionally, clinicians cited depth and detail and clarity of presentation more often than raw factual accuracy when explaining their preferences, highlighting the importance of readability and clinical nuance. We also confirm that the model rankings remain stable even after controlling for style-related factors like response length and formatting. By grounding evaluation in real-world clinical questions and preferences, MedArena offers a scalable platform for measuring and improving the utility and efficacy of medical LLMs.

Bertie Vidgen, Abby Fennelly, Evan Pinnix et al.

We introduce the first version of the AI Productivity Index (APEX), a benchmark for assessing whether frontier AI models can perform knowledge work with high economic value. APEX addresses one of the largest inefficiencies in AI research: outside of coding, benchmarks often fail to test economically relevant capabilities. APEX-v1.0 contains 200 test cases and covers four domains: investment banking, management consulting, law, and primary medical care. It was built in three steps. First, we sourced experts with top-tier experience e.g., investment bankers from Goldman Sachs. Second, experts created prompts that reflect high-value tasks in their day-to-day work. Third, experts created rubrics for evaluating model responses. We evaluate 23 frontier models on APEX-v1.0 using an LM judge. GPT 5 (Thinking = High) achieves the highest mean score (64.2%), followed by Grok 4 (61.3%) and Gemini 2.5 Flash (Thinking = On) (60.4%). Qwen 3 235B is the best performing open-source model and seventh best overall. There is a large gap between the performance of even the best models and human experts, highlighting the need for better measurement of models' ability to produce economically valuable work.

Sheng Liu, Long Chen, Zeyun Zhao et al.

Modern clinical practice increasingly depends on reasoning over heterogeneous, evolving, and incomplete patient data. Although recent advances in multimodal foundation models have improved performance on various clinical tasks, most existing models remain static, opaque, and poorly aligned with real-world clinical workflows. We present Cerebra, an interactive multi-agent AI team that coordinates specialized agents for EHR, clinical notes, and medical imaging analysis. These outputs are synthesized into a clinician-facing dashboard that combines visual analytics with a conversational interface, enabling clinicians to interrogate predictions and contextualize risk at the point of care. Cerebra supports privacy-preserving deployment by operating on structured representations and remains robust when modalities are incomplete. We evaluated Cerebra using a massive multi-institutional dataset spanning 3 million patients from four independent healthcare systems. Cerebra consistently outperformed both state-of-the-art single-modality models and large multimodal language model baselines. In dementia risk prediction, it achieved AUROCs up to 0.80, compared with 0.74 for the strongest single-modality model and 0.68 for language model baselines. For dementia diagnosis, it achieved an AUROC of 0.86, and for survival prediction, a C-index of 0.81. In a reader study with experienced physicians, Cerebra significantly improved expert performance, increasing accuracy by 17.5 percentage points in prospective dementia risk estimation. These results demonstrate Cerebra's potential for interpretable, robust decision support in clinical care.