ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Structured taxonomy and framework for developing medical benchmark in large language models derived from scoping review.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the rapid advancement of large language model technology, numerous studies have explored its application in the medical field. Robust evaluation is crucial for ensuring reliability and safety, leading to the development of diverse benchmark datasets. In this study, we propose a structured taxonomy to provide researchers with practical guidance for benchmark selection. Furthermore, we introduce READY, a development framework built on five principles - Reliable, Ethical, Annotated, Diverse, Yield-validated - to support the systematic design of medical benchmarks and strengthen future evaluation practices. To establish the taxonomy and framework, we systematically reviewed benchmark datasets designed for evaluating LLMs in medical context. A comprehensive literature search yielded 55 relevant studies. Each benchmark was analyzed using a structured framework encompassing the dataset construction and evaluation methodology. To assess the applicability of the proposed framework, five domain experts independently applied the READY framework to benchmark studies, demonstrating consistent inter-rater agreement. We anticipate that this research will promote more rigorous and ethical LLM evaluation, paving the way for the safe application of LLMs in clinical settings.
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.