Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Safety

aiqbench analysis

This study provides a critical real-world evaluation of general-purpose large language models against practicing physicians in traditional Chinese medicine, revealing that while LLMs excel at diagnostic reasoning and treatment principles, they currently lack the precision required for specific herb selection and dosage. The findings underscore significant safety risks including hallucinations and template-driven outputs, necessitating strict physician oversight before clinical deployment.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Large Language Models Versus Physicians in Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Real-World Clinical Case Evaluation

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.17544v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for clinical applications, yet their assessment for real-world traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practice remains limited We constructed a clinical case library comprising 349 de-identified outpatient cases from 62 hospitals and evaluated 16 LLMs and a comparator cohort of 60 practicing TCM physicians using 60 representative cases selected from this library. Model outputs and physician reports were anonymized and scored by five senior TCM experts across nine diagnostic and therapeutic dimensions. Cutting-edge general-purpose LLMs achieved higher expert scores than the physician comparators, particularly for medical advice, treatment principles and selected diagnostic tasks. However, prescription-level analyses revealed discrepancies in herb selection, dosage, and treatment strategy, and qualitative safety review identified hallucinations and undesirable template-driven outputs. These findings highlight the potential of LLMs for TCM decision support while underscoring the need for physician oversight, safety constraints and prospective clinical evaluation.

Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for clinical applications, yet their assessment for real-world traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practice remains limited We constructed a clinical case library comprising 349 de-identified outpatient cases from 62 hospitals and evaluated 16 LLMs and a comparator cohort of 60 practicing TCM physicians using 60 representative cases selected from this library. Model outputs and physician reports were anonymized and scored by five senior TCM experts across nine diagnostic and therapeutic dimensions. Cutting-edge general-purpose LLMs achieved higher expert scores than the physician comparators, particularly for medical advice, treatment principles and selected diagnostic tasks. However, prescription-level analyses revealed discrepancies in herb selection, dosage, and treatment strategy, and qualitative safety review identified hallucinations and undesirable template-driven outputs. These findings highlight the potential of LLMs for TCM decision support while underscoring the need for physician oversight, safety constraints and prospective clinical evaluation.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY)

arXiv:2609.17544 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.17544v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.17544 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

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.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 242 words

Related coverage