CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 12, 2026

Measuring What Matters: Benchmarking Generative, Multimodal, and Agentic AI in Healthcare

arXiv AI Archived May 12, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.08445v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI models are increasingly deployed in live clinical environments where they must perform reliably across complex, high-stakes workflows that standard training and validation datasets were never designed to capture. Evaluating these systems requires benchmarks: structured combinations of tasks, datasets, and metrics that enable reproducible, comparable measurement of what a model can do. The central challenge in healthcare AI is not performance alo

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 8 May 2026] Measuring What Matters: Benchmarking Generative, Multimodal, and Agentic AI in Healthcare Prasanna Desikan, Harshit Rajgarhia, Shivali Dalmia, Ananya Mantravadi AI models are increasingly deployed in live clinical environments where they must perform reliably across complex, high-stakes workflows that standard training and validation datasets were never designed to capture. Evaluating these systems requires benchmarks: structured combinations of tasks, datasets, and metrics that enable reproducible, comparable measurement of what a model can do. The central challenge in healthcare AI is not performance alone, but the absence of systematic methods to measure reliability, safety, and clinical relevance under real-world conditions. Most existing benchmarks test what a model knows; too few test whether it can perform reliably and without failing across the full complexity of real clinical tasks. Current benchmarks have accumulated through ad hoc dataset construction optimized for narrow task performance: frontier models achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing examinations, but when evaluated across real clinical tasks, performance degrades sharply, scoring 0.74--0.85 on documentation, 0.61--0.76 on clinical decision support, and only 0.53--0.63 on administrative and workflow tasks \cite{medhelm}. High benchmark scores give a false sense of deployment readiness, and the gap between performance and utility widens precisely as AI systems take on more consequential clinical roles. Without a principled framework for benchmark design, the field cannot determine whether poor clinical performance reflects model limitations or failures in how performance is being measured. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2605.08445 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.08445v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.08445 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Shivali Dalmia [view email] [v1] Fri, 8 May 2026 20:12:14 UTC (80 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 12, 2026
    Archived
    May 12, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗