aiqbench analysis
MyoCardBench introduces a significant new benchmark that moves beyond isolated medical knowledge tests to evaluate LLMs within the complex, longitudinal workflow of cardiovascular care using real-world de-identified data. The results highlight distinct performance gaps between models in routine reporting versus high-stakes tasks like emergency rescue and ethical decision-making, offering researchers a rigorous framework for identifying critical safety omissions before clinical deployment.
MyoCardBench: A Real-World Data Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Clinically Authentic Cardiovascular Care Scenarios
arXiv:2607.25186v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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 MyoCardBench, a real-world benchmark spanning the cardiovascular care continuum, and assess LLM performance across clinical dimensions and specialist tasks. Methods: MyoCardBench 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, MyoCardBench 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.
Abstract: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 MyoCardBench, a real-world benchmark spanning the cardiovascular care continuum, and assess LLM performance across clinical dimensions and specialist tasks. Methods: MyoCardBench 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, MyoCardBench 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.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2607.25186 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2607.25186v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.25186 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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 · 312 words
Related coverage

Runway’s WorldPrompt and the Engineering of Real-Time Worlds
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026

MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · Oct 2, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026

How to Evaluate General-Purpose Robot Policies for Real-World Deployment
NVIDIA · Jul 12, 2026