Skip to content

2 papers indexed here

We haven’t gathered this author’s papers yet. Follow them and we’ll fetch their work.

Not the right person? Other researchers publish under this name.

Review Jul 2026

CardioBench: 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 CardioBench, a real-world benchmark spanning the cardiovascular care continuum, and assess LLM performance across clinical dimensions and specialist tasks. Methods: CardioBench 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, CardioBench 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.

Xiao Li, Mouxiao Bian, Zhaodi Wu et al. · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

Physicians and artificial intelligence diverge in evaluating large language models on real clinical cases.

While AI agents delivered highly efficient, directionally aligned assessments, they did not fully capture the nuances of human clinical judgment and could not substitute for physician-centered evaluation and promise assistive tools that can triage or pre-screen outputs to reduce human burden.

Peilun Shi, Jian Li, Ziqi Yang et al. · 0 citations