MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks

While large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing exams, these evaluations inadequately reflect the complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice. We introduce MedHELM, an extensible evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks with three key contributions. First, a clinician-validated taxonomy spanning 5 categories, 22 subcategories, and 121 tasks developed with 29 clinicians. Second, a comprehensive benchmark suite comprising 35 benchmarks (17 existing, 18 newly formulated) providing complete coverage of all categories and subcategories in the taxonomy. Third, a systematic comparison of LLMs with improved evaluation methods (using an LLM-jury) and a cost-performance analysis. Evaluation of 9 frontier LLMs, using the 35 benchmarks, revealed significant performance variation. Advanced reasoning models (DeepSeek R1: 66% win-rate; o3-mini: 64% win-rate) demonstrated superior performance, though Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable results at 40% lower estimated computational cost. On a normalized accuracy scale (0-1), most models performed strongly in Clinical Note Generation (0.73-0.85) and Patient Communication & Education (0.78-0.83), moderately in Medical Research Assistance (0.65-0.75), and generally lower in Clinical Decision Support (0.56-0.72) and Administration & Workflow (0.53-0.63). Our LLM-jury evaluation method achieved good agreement with clinician ratings (ICC = 0.47), surpassing both average clinician-clinician agreement (ICC = 0.43) and automated baselines including ROUGE-L (0.36) and BERTScore-F1 (0.44). Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable performance to top models at lower estimated cost. These findings highlight the importance of real-world, task-specific evaluation for medical use of LLMs and provides an open source framework to enable this.

Standing on FURM ground -- A framework for evaluating Fair, Useful, and Reliable AI Models in healthcare systems

The impact of using artificial intelligence (AI) to guide patient care or operational processes is an interplay of the AI model's output, the decision-making protocol based on that output, and the capacity of the stakeholders involved to take the necessary subsequent action. Estimating the effects of this interplay before deployment, and studying it in real time afterwards, are essential to bridge the chasm between AI model development and achievable benefit. To accomplish this, the Data Science team at Stanford Health Care has developed a Testing and Evaluation (T&E) mechanism to identify fair, useful and reliable AI models (FURM) by conducting an ethical review to identify potential value mismatches, simulations to estimate usefulness, financial projections to assess sustainability, as well as analyses to determine IT feasibility, design a deployment strategy, and recommend a prospective monitoring and evaluation plan. We report on FURM assessments done to evaluate six AI guided solutions for potential adoption, spanning clinical and operational settings, each with the potential to impact from several dozen to tens of thousands of patients each year. We describe the assessment process, summarize the six assessments, and share our framework to enable others to conduct similar assessments. Of the six solutions we assessed, two have moved into a planning and implementation phase. Our novel contributions - usefulness estimates by simulation, financial projections to quantify sustainability, and a process to do ethical assessments - as well as their underlying methods and open source tools, are available for other healthcare systems to conduct actionable evaluations of candidate AI solutions.