A Benchmark for Long-Form Medical Question Answering
This addresses the problem of inadequate evaluation for real-world clinical applications of LLMs, though it is incremental as it builds on existing benchmarking efforts.
The authors tackled the lack of benchmarks for evaluating large language models in long-form medical question answering by introducing a new publicly available benchmark with real-world consumer medical questions and doctor-annotated long-form answer evaluations, finding that open LLMs show strong potential compared to leading closed models.
There is a lack of benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in long-form medical question answering (QA). Most existing medical QA evaluation benchmarks focus on automatic metrics and multiple-choice questions. While valuable, these benchmarks fail to fully capture or assess the complexities of real-world clinical applications where LLMs are being deployed. Furthermore, existing studies on evaluating long-form answer generation in medical QA are primarily closed-source, lacking access to human medical expert annotations, which makes it difficult to reproduce results and enhance existing baselines. In this work, we introduce a new publicly available benchmark featuring real-world consumer medical questions with long-form answer evaluations annotated by medical doctors. We performed pairwise comparisons of responses from various open and closed-source medical and general-purpose LLMs based on criteria such as correctness, helpfulness, harmfulness, and bias. Additionally, we performed a comprehensive LLM-as-a-judge analysis to study the alignment between human judgments and LLMs. Our preliminary results highlight the strong potential of open LLMs in medical QA compared to leading closed models. Code & Data: https://github.com/lavita-ai/medical-eval-sphere