Daily Papers

Specialized clinical AI assistants are rapidly entering medical practice, often framed as safer or more reliable than general-purpose large language models (LLMs). Yet, unlike frontier models, these clinical tools are rarely subjected to independent, quantitative evaluation, creating a critical evidence gap despite their growing influence on diagnosis, triage, and guideline interpretation. We assessed two widely deployed clinical AI systems (OpenEvidence and UpToDate Expert AI) against three state-of-the-art generalist LLMs (GPT-5, Gemini 3 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 4.5) using a 1,000-item mini-benchmark combining MedQA (medical knowledge) and HealthBench (clinician-alignment) tasks. Generalist models consistently outperformed clinical tools, with GPT-5 achieving the highest scores, while OpenEvidence and UpToDate demonstrated deficits in completeness, communication quality, context awareness, and systems-based safety reasoning. These findings reveal that tools marketed for clinical decision support may often lag behind frontier LLMs, underscoring the urgent need for transparent, independent evaluation before deployment in patient-facing workflows.

Physicians now pose millions of clinical questions to AI tools each week, yet these tools are evaluated largely on hypothetical or exam-style questions, not those actually asked in practice. We report a blinded evaluation built on 620 Real-world Point-Of-Care Queries (Real-POCQi) submitted to the OpenEvidence (OE) platform by physicians spanning 30 specialties, as well as 187 questions from HealthBench. 149 practicing physicians across 36 states made head-to-head comparisons between answers from three frontier general-purpose models (Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT-5.5) and a specialized clinical tool (OE), with graders matched to each question's specialty. When comparing answers along five dimensions relevant to clinical decision support -- accuracy, clinical utility, source quality, verifiability, & completeness -- physicians scored the specialized tool highest on all axes; in the primary analysis on Real-POCQi, win differences (margins between win and loss rates) ranged from 25 to 39 percentage points (p<0.001). Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses stratifying by citation display, answer length, OE-user status, and Real-POCQi versus HealthBench. In parallel, LLM judges were found to systematically differ from expert judges, though both generally agreed on the best model. These findings underscore two conclusions: (i) AI tool evaluations should reflect real-world query distributions and use expert judges that mirror the specialization defining modern medicine and (ii) the consistent advantage of the specialized tool over general-purpose models does not necessarily mean that the latter cannot serve similar purposes, but that targeted engineering and customization can yield meaningful gains in performance for its users. We release Real-POCQi as a public benchmark, as well as the prespecified statistical analysis for reproducing results of this study.

Scientific AI agents increasingly retrieve evidence, reason across sources, and synthesize conclusions used in consequential decisions. Yet, their ability to do so in high-stakes domains such as health remains unclear. We introduce SciConBench, a large-scale live benchmark of 9.11K questions and expert-written conclusions from systematic reviews to evaluate open-domain scientific conclusion synthesis. The benchmark draws on an expert-validated automated evaluation pipeline that decomposes conclusions into atomic facts and measures correctness and comprehensiveness via factual precision and recall. To mitigate data leakage, we further introduce SciConHarness, a clean-room evaluation harness that equips agents with controlled web interaction to ensure valid measurement. Evaluating 8 frontier models and deep research agents, we find that factual quality remains low: under clean-room settings, the best agent achieves only a factual F1 of 0.337. Our clean-room setting consistently reduces performance relative to unconstrained evaluation, suggesting that leakage inflates estimates of models' true synthesis capabilities. Finally, we audit consumer-facing agents (e.g., Google AI Overview, OpenEvidence) and find they frequently generate incomplete and sometimes contradictory conclusions, even when the ground-truth answer is available. Overall, our results show that reliable synthesis of scientific conclusions remains an open challenge, and that clean-room evaluation is essential for assessing open-domain AI agents.