Skip to content
← Back to explorer

ClinConsensus: A Consensus-Based Benchmark for Evaluating Chinese Medical LLMs across Difficulty Levels

Xiang Zheng, Han Li, Wenjie Luo, Weiqi Zhai, Yiyuan Li, Chuanmiao Yan, Tianyi Tang, Yubo Ma, Kexin Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Hu Wei, Bing Zhao · Mar 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to health management, showing promise across disease prevention, clinical decision-making, and long-term care. However, existing medical benchmarks remain largely static and task-isolated, failing to capture the openness, longitudinal structure, and safety-critical complexity of real-world clinical workflows. We introduce ClinConsensus, a Chinese medical benchmark curated, validated, and quality-controlled by clinical experts. ClinConsensus comprises 2500 open-ended cases spanning the full continuum of care--from prevention and intervention to long-term follow-up--covering 36 medical specialties, 12 common clinical task types, and progressively increasing levels of complexity. To enable reliable evaluation of such complex scenarios, we adopt a rubric-based grading protocol and propose the Clinically Applicable Consistency Score (CACS@k). We further introduce a dual-judge evaluation framework, combining a high-capability LLM-as-judge with a distilled, locally deployable judge model trained via supervised fine-tuning, enabling scalable and reproducible evaluation aligned with physician judgment. Using ClinConsensus, we conduct a comprehensive assessment of several leading LLMs and reveal substantial heterogeneity across task themes, care stages, and medical specialties. While top-performing models achieve comparable overall scores, they differ markedly in reasoning, evidence use, and longitudinal follow-up capabilities, and clinically actionable treatment planning remains a key bottleneck. We release ClinConsensus as an extensible benchmark to support the development and evaluation of medical LLMs that are robust, clinically grounded, and ready for real-world deployment.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper has direct human-feedback and/or evaluation protocol signal and is likely useful for eval pipeline design.

Eval-Fit Score

57/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

High-confidence candidate

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Rubric Rating
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Unit of annotation: Multi Dim Rubric
  • Expertise required: Medicine
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Llm As Judge
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.65
  • Flags: None

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

However, existing medical benchmarks remain largely static and task-isolated, failing to capture the openness, longitudinal structure, and safety-critical complexity of real-world clinical workflows. HFEPX signals include Rubric Rating, Llm As Judge with confidence 0.65. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 4, 2026, 4:38 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • However, existing medical benchmarks remain largely static and task-isolated, failing to capture the openness, longitudinal structure, and safety-critical complexity of real-world…
  • We introduce ClinConsensus, a Chinese medical benchmark curated, validated, and quality-controlled by clinical experts.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare its human-feedback setup against pairwise and rubric hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • However, existing medical benchmarks remain largely static and task-isolated, failing to capture the openness, longitudinal structure, and safety-critical complexity of real-world clinical workflows.
  • We introduce ClinConsensus, a Chinese medical benchmark curated, validated, and quality-controlled by clinical experts.
  • To enable reliable evaluation of such complex scenarios, we adopt a rubric-based grading protocol and propose the Clinically Applicable Consistency Score (CACS@k).

Why It Matters For Eval

  • However, existing medical benchmarks remain largely static and task-isolated, failing to capture the openness, longitudinal structure, and safety-critical complexity of real-world clinical workflows.
  • We introduce ClinConsensus, a Chinese medical benchmark curated, validated, and quality-controlled by clinical experts.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Rubric Rating

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Llm As Judge

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.