Kameron C. Black

Ruoqi Liu, Imran Q. Mohiuddin, Austin J. Schoeffler et al.

We introduce PhysicianBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on physician tasks grounded in real clinical setting within electronic health record (EHR) environments. Existing medical agent benchmarks primarily focus on static knowledge recall, single-step atomic actions, or action intent without verifiable execution against the environment. As a result, they fail to capture the long-horizon, composite workflows that characterize real clinical systems. PhysicianBench comprises 100 long-horizon tasks adapted from real consultation cases between primary care and subspecialty physicians, with each task independently reviewed by a separate panel of physicians. Tasks are instantiated in an EHR environment with real patient records and accessed through the same standard APIs used by commercial EHR vendors. Tasks span 21 specialties (e.g., cardiology, endocrinology, oncology, psychiatry) and diverse workflow types (e.g., diagnosis interpretation, medication prescribing, treatment planning), requiring an average of 27 tool calls per task. Solving each task requires retrieving data across encounters, reasoning over heterogeneous clinical information, executing consequential clinical actions, and producing clinical documentation. Each task is decomposed into structured checkpoints (670 in total across the benchmark) capturing distinct stages of completion graded by task-specific scripts with execution-grounded verification. Across 13 proprietary and open-source LLM agents, the best-performing model achieves only 46% success rate (pass@1), while open-source models reach at most 19%, revealing a substantial gap between current agent capabilities and the demands of real-world clinical workflows. PhysicianBench provides a realistic and execution-grounded benchmark for measuring progress toward autonomous clinical agents.

Yixing Jiang, Kameron C. Black, Gloria Geng et al.

Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant advancements, particularly in their ability to serve as agents thereby surpassing their traditional role as chatbots. These agents can leverage their planning and tool utilization capabilities to address tasks specified at a high level. However, a standardized dataset to benchmark the agent capabilities of LLMs in medical applications is currently lacking, making the evaluation of LLMs on complex tasks in interactive healthcare environments challenging. To address this gap, we introduce MedAgentBench, a broad evaluation suite designed to assess the agent capabilities of large language models within medical records contexts. MedAgentBench encompasses 300 patient-specific clinically-derived tasks from 10 categories written by human physicians, realistic profiles of 100 patients with over 700,000 data elements, a FHIR-compliant interactive environment, and an accompanying codebase. The environment uses the standard APIs and communication infrastructure used in modern EMR systems, so it can be easily migrated into live EMR systems. MedAgentBench presents an unsaturated agent-oriented benchmark that current state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit some ability to succeed at. The best model (Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2) achieves a success rate of 69.67%. However, there is still substantial space for improvement which gives the community a next direction to optimize. Furthermore, there is significant variation in performance across task categories. MedAgentBench establishes this and is publicly available at https://github.com/stanfordmlgroup/MedAgentBench , offering a valuable framework for model developers to track progress and drive continuous improvements in the agent capabilities of large language models within the medical domain.

Ivan Lopez, Selin S. Everett, Bryan J. Bunning et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinician workflows, yet evaluations rarely measure how clinician reasoning shapes model behavior during clinical interactions. We combined 61 New England Journal of Medicine Case Records with 92 real-world clinician-AI interactions to evaluate 21 reasoning LLM variants across 8 frontier models on differential diagnosis generation and next step recommendations under three conditions: reasoning alone, after expert clinician context, and after adversarial clinician context. LLM-clinician concordance increased substantially after clinician exposure, with simulations sharing >=3 differential diagnosis items rising from 65.8% to 93.5% and >=3 next step recommendations from 20.3% to 53.8%. Expert context significantly improved correct final diagnosis inclusion across all 21 models (mean +20.4 percentage points), reflecting both reasoning improvement and passive content echoing, while adversarial context caused significant diagnostic degradation in 14 models (mean -5.4 percentage points). Multi-turn disagreement probes revealed distinct model phenotypes ranging from highly conformist to dogmatic, with adversarial arguments remaining a persistent vulnerability even for otherwise resilient models. Inference-time scaling reduced harmful echoing of clinician-introduced recommendations across WHO-defined harm severity tiers (relative reductions: 62.7% mild, 57.9% moderate, 76.3% severe, 83.5% death-tier). In GPT-4o experiments, explicit clinician uncertainty signals improved diagnostic performance after adversarial context (final diagnosis inclusion 27% to 42%) and reduced alignment with incorrect arguments by 21%. These findings establish a foundation for evaluating clinician-AI collaboration, introducing interactive metrics and mitigation strategies essential for safety and robustness.

Wenyuan Chen, Fateme Nateghi Haredasht, Kameron C. Black et al.

Asynchronous patient-clinician messaging via EHR portals is a growing source of clinician workload, prompting interest in large language models (LLMs) to assist with draft responses. However, LLM outputs may contain clinical inaccuracies, omissions, or tone mismatches, making robust evaluation essential. Our contributions are threefold: (1) we introduce a clinically grounded error ontology comprising 5 domains and 59 granular error codes, developed through inductive coding and expert adjudication; (2) we develop a retrieval-augmented evaluation pipeline (RAEC) that leverages semantically similar historical message-response pairs to improve judgment quality; and (3) we provide a two-stage prompting architecture using DSPy to enable scalable, interpretable, and hierarchical error detection. Our approach assesses the quality of drafts both in isolation and with reference to similar past message-response pairs retrieved from institutional archives. Using a two-stage DSPy pipeline, we compared baseline and reference-enhanced evaluations on over 1,500 patient messages. Retrieval context improved error identification in domains such as clinical completeness and workflow appropriateness. Human validation on 100 messages demonstrated superior agreement (concordance = 50% vs. 33%) and performance (F1 = 0.500 vs. 0.256) of context-enhanced labels vs. baseline, supporting the use of our RAEC pipeline as AI guardrails for patient messaging.

François Grolleau, Emily Alsentzer, Timothy Keyes et al.

Evaluating factual accuracy in Large Language Model (LLM)-generated clinical text is a critical barrier to adoption, as expert review is unscalable for the continuous quality assurance these systems require. We address this challenge with two complementary contributions. First, we introduce MedFactEval, a framework for scalable, fact-grounded evaluation where clinicians define high-salience key facts and an "LLM Jury"--a multi-LLM majority vote--assesses their inclusion in generated summaries. Second, we present MedAgentBrief, a model-agnostic, multi-step workflow designed to generate high-quality, factual discharge summaries. To validate our evaluation framework, we established a gold-standard reference using a seven-physician majority vote on clinician-defined key facts from inpatient cases. The MedFactEval LLM Jury achieved almost perfect agreement with this panel (Cohen's kappa=81%), a performance statistically non-inferior to that of a single human expert (kappa=67%, P < 0.001). Our work provides both a robust evaluation framework (MedFactEval) and a high-performing generation workflow (MedAgentBrief), offering a comprehensive approach to advance the responsible deployment of generative AI in clinical workflows.