RESPClinBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Clinical Decision-Making and Longitudinal Disease Management in Respiratory Specialty Care

Background: Respiratory specialty care requires multimodal interpretation, longitudinal risk assessment, guideline-concordant intervention, and whole-course management, which are poorly represented by examination-oriented medical benchmarks. Objective: To develop RESPClinBench, a real-world scenario-based benchmark for respiratory clinical decision-making, and evaluate seven contemporary large language models across AECOPD-PIM and PNBIM. Methods: RESPClinBench cases were adapted from de-identified respiratory clinical data. Three attending-level respiratory physicians revised cases, reference answers, and atomic clinical-action points, while one senior respiratory specialist performed cross-review and final adjudication. AECOPD-PIM comprised 427 open-ended COPD cases, and PNBIM comprised 196 multimodal pulmonary nodule cases combining chest CT with structured clinical information. Seven models generated 4,361 responses through standardized API inference with temperature 0 and a maximum output length of 8192 tokens. An automated framework calculated the final score as the arithmetic mean of atomic-action recall and rubric-based LLM-as-a-Judge assessment. Results: Across 623 cases, the mean final score was 68.58. Qwen3.6-27B ranked first overall at 71.22, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B led PNBIM at 72.48, and Qwen3.6-27B led AECOPD-PIM at 71.11. Imaging hallucination and serious medical risk occurred in 31.85% and 8.16% of PNBIM responses; medication-safety risk and serious medical risk occurred in 26.93% and 1.44% of AECOPD-PIM responses. Conclusions: RESPClinBench identifies task-specific limitations in multimodal pulmonary nodule assessment and longitudinal COPD management. Combining explicit clinical-action coverage, holistic evaluation, and independent safety flags provides a clinically grounded basis for model selection and prospective validation.

MyoCardBench: A Real-World Data Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Clinically Authentic Cardiovascular Care Scenarios

Background: Most medical large language model (LLM) benchmarks focus on examination knowledge or isolated tasks and may not reflect the longitudinal, multimodal, and safety-critical workflow of cardiovascular care. Objective: To develop MyoCardBench, a real-world benchmark spanning the cardiovascular care continuum, and assess LLM performance across clinical dimensions and specialist tasks. Methods: MyoCardBench includes 2,263 items from 13 task-specific datasets derived from de-identified cardiovascular records and examination data. Sixteen cardiology physicians conducted annotation and reference construction, followed by cross-review from two senior cardiologists. Seven LLMs generated 15,841 outputs under standardized zero-shot settings. Open-ended tasks were evaluated using key-point coverage and holistic clinical quality, while CardioEthics was scored by accuracy. Results: GPT-5.4 achieved the highest macro-average (62.55) and item-weighted mean (62.19), followed by Gemini 3.1 Pro (59.95) and Qwen 3.6 27B (59.72). GPT-5.4 ranked first in all three dimensions. CardioAuxReport performed best (86.38), whereas CardioECGRead (17.25) and CardioEthics (17.34) were lowest. The largest gaps between holistic clinical quality and key-point coverage occurred in CardioComm (52.71), CardioEmergRescue (52.05), and CardioTreatPlan (48.80). Conclusions: To our knowledge, MyoCardBench is the largest real-world, multi-task benchmark for LLM evaluation across the cardiovascular care continuum and offers the broadest coverage of clinically authentic cardiology scenarios reported to date. It provides a rigorous framework for identifying model strengths, clinically important omissions, and priorities for future development.

MedBench v5: A Dynamic, Process-Oriented, and Hallucination-Aware Benchmark for Clinical Multimodal Models

Existing medical AI benchmarks lack process visibility, atomic skill evaluation, and integrated hallucination detection. We introduce MedBench v5, a redesigned benchmark for clinical multimodal models (language, vision-language, and agent systems) that moves from static QA to dynamic, process-oriented evaluation. MedBench v5 features: (1) a dual-dimensional framework combining Clinical Cognitive Responsiveness (14 sub-dimensions) and Medical Atomic Skills (4 agent environments), covering 63 tasks; (2) three switchable information-flow stressors (omission, contradiction, evidence delay) for factorized degradation analysis; (3) a dynamic process audit protocol with five reasoning nodes that produces model-specific failure fingerprints; (4) hallucination propagation monitoring across initiation, propagation, anchoring, and contradiction interaction-capturing silent hallucination. Experiments on frontier models show that strong overall task performance does not guarantee process stability: stressors mainly disrupt contradiction detection, diagnosis updating, hallucination propagation, and contradiction-based self-correction, while final evidence grounding can remain superficially stable. MedBench v5 provides a unified infrastructure for capability profiling, controllable stress testing, process auditing, and hallucination trajectory analysis in clinical AI evaluation.

SafeMed-R1: Clinician-Audited Safety and Ethics Alignment for Medical Large Language Models

Large language models(LLMs) increasingly match expert performance on licensing examinations, yet routine clinical use remains limited because governance requires auditable reasoning, safety and ethics alignment, and resilience to adversarial misuse. Here we present SafeMed-R1, trained with a traceable Clinical Trust Signals(CTS) pipeline that links each reasoning instance to clinician rubric scores and edit histories, and aligned through safety and ethics supervision and red team stress testing. SafeMed-R1 attains a macro-averaged accuracy of 79.6% across clinical benchmarks. Under adversarial safety testing, it shows the lowest aggregated risk and reduces unsafe outputs by about 3 to 5% relative to its baseline. In a paired expert study of 30 medication safety vignettes, SafeMed-R1 matches PGY1 and PGY2 residents on medical correctness and scores higher for medication safety, guideline consistency, and clinical usefulness. Collectively, these results suggest that clinician-audited supervision provenance, together with domain-tailored safety and ethics alignment, can strengthen governance-relevant evidence without relying on inference-time retrieval or citation grounding.

Multi-Agent Intelligence for Multidisciplinary Decision-Making in Gastrointestinal Oncology

Multimodal clinical reasoning in the field of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology necessitates the integrated interpretation of endoscopic imagery, radiological data, and biochemical markers. Despite the evident potential exhibited by Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), they frequently encounter challenges such as context dilution and hallucination when confronted with intricate, heterogeneous medical histories. In order to address these limitations, a hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework is proposed, which emulates the collaborative workflow of a human Multidisciplinary Team (MDT). The system attained a composite expert evaluation score of 4.60/5.00, thereby demonstrating a substantial improvement over the monolithic baseline. It is noteworthy that the agent-based architecture yielded the most substantial enhancements in reasoning logic and medical accuracy. The findings indicate that mimetic, agent-based collaboration provides a scalable, interpretable, and clinically robust paradigm for automated decision support in oncology.

MedBench v4: A Robust and Scalable Benchmark for Evaluating Chinese Medical Language Models, Multimodal Models, and Intelligent Agents

Recent advances in medical large language models (LLMs), multimodal models, and agents demand evaluation frameworks that reflect real clinical workflows and safety constraints. We present MedBench v4, a nationwide, cloud-based benchmarking infrastructure comprising over 700,000 expert-curated tasks spanning 24 primary and 91 secondary specialties, with dedicated tracks for LLMs, multimodal models, and agents. Items undergo multi-stage refinement and multi-round review by clinicians from more than 500 institutions, and open-ended responses are scored by an LLM-as-a-judge calibrated to human ratings. We evaluate 15 frontier models. Base LLMs reach a mean overall score of 54.1/100 (best: Claude Sonnet 4.5, 62.5/100), but safety and ethics remain low (18.4/100). Multimodal models perform worse overall (mean 47.5/100; best: GPT-5, 54.9/100), with solid perception yet weaker cross-modal reasoning. Agents built on the same backbones substantially improve end-to-end performance (mean 79.8/100), with Claude Sonnet 4.5-based agents achieving up to 85.3/100 overall and 88.9/100 on safety tasks. MedBench v4 thus reveals persisting gaps in multimodal reasoning and safety for base models, while showing that governance-aware agentic orchestration can markedly enhance benchmarked clinical readiness without sacrificing capability. By aligning tasks with Chinese clinical guidelines and regulatory priorities, the platform offers a practical reference for hospitals, developers, and policymakers auditing medical AI.

Can Large Language Models Function as Qualified Pediatricians? A Systematic Evaluation in Real-World Clinical Contexts

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.

MedCalc-Eval and MedCalc-Env: Advancing Medical Calculation Capabilities of Large Language Models

As large language models (LLMs) enter the medical domain, most benchmarks evaluate them on question answering or descriptive reasoning, overlooking quantitative reasoning critical to clinical decision-making. Existing datasets like MedCalc-Bench cover few calculation tasks and fail to reflect real-world computational scenarios. We introduce MedCalc-Eval, the largest benchmark for assessing LLMs' medical calculation abilities, comprising 700+ tasks across two types: equation-based (e.g., Cockcroft-Gault, BMI, BSA) and rule-based scoring systems (e.g., Apgar, Glasgow Coma Scale). These tasks span diverse specialties including internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and cardiology, offering a broader and more challenging evaluation setting. To improve performance, we further develop MedCalc-Env, a reinforcement learning environment built on the InternBootcamp framework, enabling multi-step clinical reasoning and planning. Fine-tuning a Qwen2.5-32B model within this environment achieves state-of-the-art results on MedCalc-Eval, with notable gains in numerical sensitivity, formula selection, and reasoning robustness. Remaining challenges include unit conversion, multi-condition logic, and contextual understanding. Code and datasets are available at https://github.com/maokangkun/MedCalc-Eval.

Benchmarking Ethical and Safety Risks of Healthcare LLMs in China-Toward Systemic Governance under Healthy China 2030

Large Language Models (LLMs) are poised to transform healthcare under China's Healthy China 2030 initiative, yet they introduce new ethical and patient-safety challenges. We present a novel 12,000-item Q&A benchmark covering 11 ethics and 9 safety dimensions in medical contexts, to quantitatively evaluate these risks. Using this dataset, we assess state-of-the-art Chinese medical LLMs (e.g., Qwen 2.5-32B, DeepSeek), revealing moderate baseline performance (accuracy 42.7% for Qwen 2.5-32B) and significant improvements after fine-tuning on our data (up to 50.8% accuracy). Results show notable gaps in LLM decision-making on ethics and safety scenarios, reflecting insufficient institutional oversight. We then identify systemic governance shortfalls-including the lack of fine-grained ethical audit protocols, slow adaptation by hospital IRBs, and insufficient evaluation tools-that currently hinder safe LLM deployment. Finally, we propose a practical governance framework for healthcare institutions (embedding LLM auditing teams, enacting data ethics guidelines, and implementing safety simulation pipelines) to proactively manage LLM risks. Our study highlights the urgent need for robust LLM governance in Chinese healthcare, aligning AI innovation with patient safety and ethical standards.

Building a Human-Verified Clinical Reasoning Dataset via a Human LLM Hybrid Pipeline for Trustworthy Medical AI

Despite strong performance in medical question-answering, the clinical adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) is critically hampered by their opaque 'black-box' reasoning, limiting clinician trust. This challenge is compounded by the predominant reliance of current medical LLMs on corpora from scientific literature or synthetic data, which often lack the granular expert validation and high clinical relevance essential for advancing their specialized medical capabilities. To address these critical gaps, we introduce a highly clinically relevant dataset with 31,247 medical question-answer pairs, each accompanied by expert-validated chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations. This resource, spanning multiple clinical domains, was curated via a scalable human-LLM hybrid pipeline: LLM-generated rationales were iteratively reviewed, scored, and refined by medical experts against a structured rubric, with substandard outputs revised through human effort or guided LLM regeneration until expert consensus. This publicly available dataset provides a vital source for the development of medical LLMs that capable of transparent and verifiable reasoning, thereby advancing safer and more interpretable AI in medicine.