Evaluating Large Language Models in Dynamic Clinical Decision-Making with Standardized Patient Cases
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
arXiv:2606.05112 (cs)
[Submitted on 3 Jun 2026]
Title:Evaluating Large Language Models in Dynamic Clinical Decision-Making with Standardized Patient Cases
View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating Large Language Models in Dynamic Clinical Decision-Making with Standardized Patient Cases, by Cheng Liang and 5 other authors
View PDF
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as clinical agents, yet static, single-turn benchmarks cannot capture how a model dynamically delivers care across an encounter: gathering information, planning treatment, and adapting longitudinal management across successive patient states. Medical education has long addressed an analogous challenge through standardized patients (SPs): trained actors who consistently portray clinical cases, enabling realistic practice and objective, scripted assessment. Here we introduce MedSP1000, an SP-derived interactive benchmark for clinical-agent evaluation, including 1,638 SP cases with 24,602 trajectory-level peer-reviewed rubrics. MedSP1000 converts peer-reviewed SP teaching cases into executable scenarios with defined SP case scripts, clinical environment contexts, and human-validated structured rubric. In each simulation evaluation run, a clinical agent interacts in closed loop with a patient agent and an environment controller, and its behaviour is scored throughout the encounter against expert criteria specified in the original materials. Applying MedSP1000 to a range of general-purpose and medically specialized LLMs, we find that performance on static benchmarks does not reliably translate to such educational scenarios. The best-performing model, GPT-5.5, completes only 60.4% of expert-defined rubric items, whereas the strongest medically specialized model reaches 40.0%; increasing test-time compute produces no measurable gain. These results suggest that current LLMs, including agentic systems tuned for medicine, are not yet reliable enough to be safely integrated into actual clinical practice. More broadly, MedSP1000 shows how process-level, SP-style evaluation can reveal clinically relevant failure modes that single-turn benchmarks miss.
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2606.05112 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2606.05112v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.05112
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating Large Language Models in Dynamic Clinical Decision-Making with Standardized Patient Cases, by Cheng Liang and 5 other authors
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
Do Transformers Need Three Projections? Systematic Study of QKV Variants
Jun 4
-
Large Language Models Hack Rewards, and Society
Jun 4
-
Training-Free Lexical-Dense Fusion for Conversational-Memory Retrieval
Jun 4
-
Sparse Mixture-of-Experts Reward Models Learn Interpretable and Specialized Experts for Personalized Preference Modeling
Jun 4
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.