ArticleNature medicine2026
Holistic evaluation of large language models for medical tasks with MedHELM.
Article in Nature medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Large language models in healthcare: applications, evaluation frameworks, and governance pathways - a scoping review and multidimensional framework.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Knowledge-Practice Performance Gap in Clinical Large Language Models: Systematic Review of 39 Benchmarks.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- MAGIC: an international network for evaluating generative artificial intelligence in global health.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Accountability for large language models in health care.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in orthopaedics should be built with surgeons, not just for them!Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Process-Oriented, Behaviorally Anchored Assessment of Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models and the Effect of Extended Thinking: Protocol for a Prospective, Multigroup, Comparative Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Evaluating Large Language Models in Clinical Audiology (AUDIOLOGYBENCH): Benchmark Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- "Small" Large Language Models in the Hospital: Evaluation Study on Real-World Data in a Resource-Constrained Setting.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Generative large language models in medicine: a scoping review of recent methodological advances.npj health systems · 2026Review
- Concordance of Large Language Model Recommendations with Multidisciplinary Heart Team Decisions in Coronary Revascularization and Aortic Valve Intervention: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Review
- Toward a test of medical AI superintelligence.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- The Performance of Large Language Models in Extracting Intestinal Symptoms From Electronic Health Records: Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- Review
- Enhancing Psychiatry Training Using an Agentic AI Simulated Consultation Tool: Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- From breadth to depth in clinical artificial intelligence evaluation.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- BRIDGE: benchmarking large language models for understanding real-world clinical practice texts.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Assessing Eligibility for Anticancer Drug Health Insurance Reimbursement Using Large Language Models: Benchmark Development and Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models on multilingual vaccine knowledge: a benchmark study.NPJ vaccines · 2026Article
- The bottleneck was never data or algorithms: building a learning utility for AI-enabled learning health systems.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Arkangel AI, OpenEvidence, ChatGPT, Medisearch: Are They Objectively up to Medical Standards? A Real-Life Assessment of LLM Chatbots in Health Care.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
83 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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. Here we introduce MedHELM, an extensible evaluation framework with three contributions. First, a clinician-validated taxonomy organizing medical AI applications into five categories that mirror real clinical tasks-clinical decision support (diagnostic decisions, treatment planning), clinical note generation (visit documentation, procedure reports), patient communication (education materials, care instructions), medical research (literature analysis, clinical data analysis) and administration (scheduling, workflow coordination). These encompass 22 subcategories and 121 specific tasks reflecting daily medical practice. Second, a comprehensive benchmark suite of 37 evaluations covering all subcategories. Third, systematic comparison of nine frontier LLMs-Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek R1, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 2.0 Flash, GPT-4o, GPT-4o mini, Llama 3.3 and o3-mini-using an automated LLM-jury evaluation method. Our LLM-jury uses multiple AI evaluators to assess model outputs against expert-defined criteria. Advanced reasoning models (DeepSeek R1, o3-mini) demonstrated superior performance with win rates of 66%, although Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable results at 15% lower computational cost. These results not only highlight current model capabilities but also demonstrate how MedHELM could enable evidence-based selection of medical AI systems for healthcare applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.