arXiv:2606.17474cs.CLcs.AI2026-06被引 1

基于病历数据的多轮临床对话评估框架,揭示大模型在真实诊疗中的表现短板。

AIPatient Arena: EHR-grounded evaluation of large language models in end-to-end clinical consultation workflows

  • 用电子病历构建患者知识图谱,模拟真实多轮医患对话流程
  • 模型在问诊与解释方面表现较好,但对模糊回答和诊断推理仍不理想
  • 适合医疗AI开发者、临床研究者用于评估模型在真实工作流中的可靠性

大型语言模型(LLMs)在临床咨询中的应用日益受到关注,但现有评估多为静态、单轮或仅关注结果,难以反映真实医疗中多轮、不确定和交互式的特点。本文提出AIPatient Arena,一个基于电子病历(EHR)的评估框架,用于衡量LLMs在八个临床能力维度上的表现。该框架将EHR数据整合至患者特定知识图谱,支持多轮医患互动。我们在437名患者的主要队列及两个分布外验证队列(119人和67人)上应用该框架。结果显示,模型在问诊技巧(QS,均分4.43–4.99/5)、职业伦理(ET,4.38–4.93/5)和临床解释清晰度(EX,3.80–4.72/5)表现良好;信息整合(II,3.19–4.21/5)和用药安全与理由(MS,3.13–3.78/5)中等;但在处理模糊患者回应(HR,2.57–3.32/5)、信息覆盖(IC,2.08–3.02/5)和诊断准确与推理(Dx,2.63–3.55/5)方面存在明显不足。过程分析发现重复提问、遗漏既往史、未能妥善处理不确定性等问题频发。更丰富的对话上下文虽提升诊断推理,但对治疗规划改善有限。结果表明,仅看最终答案准确率不足以评估临床可用性,强调需考察模型在整个咨询流程中信息获取、解读与沟通的能力。AIPatient Arena为医疗LLMs的部署前工作流评估提供了基于EHR的可靠框架。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for use in clinical consultation tasks, yet most medical evaluations remain static, single-turn, or narrowly outcome-based, limiting their ability to reflect the sequential, uncertain, and interactive nature of real-world care. Here, we propose AIPatient Arena, an EHRs-grounded evaluation framework for assessing the clinical utility of LLMs across eight dimensions of clinical competence. The framework integrates EHR data into patient-specific knowledge graphs, enabling multi-turn physician-patient interactions. We applied AIPatient Arena on a primary cohort of 437 patients and two out-of-distribution validation cohorts of 119 and 67 patients. We observe that LLMs performed well in medical interview questioning skills (QS; mean scores, 4.43-4.99/5), ethical and professional conduct (ET; 4.38-4.93/5), and clarity and transparency of clinical explanations (EX; 3.80-4.72/5). Performance was moderate in information integration (II; 3.19-4.21/5) and medication safety and justification (MS; 3.13-3.78/5), but persistent weaknesses were observed in handling of ambiguous patient responses (HR; 2.57-3.32/5), information coverage (IC; 2.08-3.02/5), and diagnostic accuracy and reasoning (Dx; 2.63-3.55/5). Process-based evaluation revealed recurrent interaction failures, including repetitive questioning, omission of past medical history, and inadequate handling of uncertainty. Richer conversational context improved diagnostic reasoning but yielded limited gains in treatment planning. These findings indicate that final-answer accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating clinical readiness and highlight the importance of assessing how models gather, interpret, and communicate information throughout a consultation. AIPatient Arena provides an EHR-grounded framework for workflow-oriented pre-deployment evaluation of medical LLMs.

医疗AI大模型评估电子病历多轮对话

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。