Benchmarking large language models against human experts in rehabilitation medicine: a multidimensional evaluation

Rehabilitation medicine faces a significant challenge due to the rising demand for services coupled with a shortage of specialized professionals. Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for enhancing clinical efficiency, but their evaluation has been largely limited to simulated scenarios, lacking direct performance comparisons with human experts in complex, real-world clinical tasks. To systematically benchmark five state-of-the-art LLMs against senior physiatrists in formulating comprehensive rehabilitation plans for authentic clinical cases, evaluating their utility as clinical decision support tools. We conducted a rigorous, blinded evaluation using 48 authentic cases across six subspecialties. Plans generated by five LLMs (Grok-4, Gemini−2.5-pro, ChatGPT-5-2025-08-07, Deepseek-r1-0528, and Claude-opus-4-20250514) were compared with expert-authored plans. A panel of 6 senior physiatrists evaluated the plans using a multi-dimensional framework covering four key domains: Clinical Applicability and Safety (primary safety endpoint), Scientific Rigor, Individualization, and Clarity. To address the data’s hierarchical structure, we employed Linear Mixed-Effects Models (LMM) with random intercepts for cases and raters, and fixed effects for models and language. Pairwise comparisons were adjusted using the Holm-Bonferroni correction. Quantitative analysis revealed that Grok-4 (mean 4.31) and Gemini−2.5-pro (mean 4.14) significantly outperformed the human benchmark (derived from standardized expert solutions) (mean 3.56; $$P<0.001$$ ). Notably, the open-source Deepseek-r1 (mean 3.69) also achieved a statistically significant advantage over experts ( $$P<0.001$$ ). Conversely, human experts scored numerically higher than Claude-opus-4 (mean 3.50), though this difference was not statistically significant ( $$P=0.099$$ ). Qualitative analysis further highlighted human experts’ distinct strengths in strategic pathway design and humanistic care. Top-tier LLMs demonstrate capability in generating high-quality, evidence-based plans, positioning them as effective “executors” for drafting preliminary regimens. We propose a human-AI collaboration paradigm where experts function as “strategists,” focusing on optimization and humanistic care to elevate rehabilitation service quality.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Published
2026-03-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-026-01903-0
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Benchmarking large language models against human experts in rehabilitation medicine: a multidimensional evaluation

Ying Shen, Yaping Wan, Guijuan Zhou, Mengjian Qu et al.
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

Benchmarking large language models against human experts in rehabilitation medicine: a multidimensional evaluation

Ying Shen, Yaping Wan, Guijuan Zhou, Mengjian Qu, Yi Li, Haiming Wang, Lisha Zhang, Qi Wu, Huifang Liu, Helin Gong, Tao Zhu, Wenhui Cao, Jihua Zou, Jun Zhou, Jing Liu, Xiaofeng He, Guanghua Sun
article en

Abstract

Rehabilitation medicine faces a significant challenge due to the rising demand for services coupled with a shortage of specialized professionals. Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for enhancing clinical efficiency, but their evaluation has been largely limited to simulated scenarios, lacking direct performance comparisons with human experts in complex, real-world clinical tasks. To systematically benchmark five state-of-the-art LLMs against senior physiatrists in formulating comprehensive rehabilitation plans for authentic clinical cases, evaluating their utility as clinical decision support tools. We conducted a rigorous, blinded evaluation using 48 authentic cases across six subspecialties. Plans generated by five LLMs (Grok-4, Gemini−2.5-pro, ChatGPT-5-2025-08-07, Deepseek-r1-0528, and Claude-opus-4-20250514) were compared with expert-authored plans. A panel of 6 senior physiatrists evaluated the plans using a multi-dimensional framework covering four key domains: Clinical Applicability and Safety (primary safety endpoint), Scientific Rigor, Individualization, and Clarity. To address the data’s hierarchical structure, we employed Linear Mixed-Effects Models (LMM) with random intercepts for cases and raters, and fixed effects for models and language. Pairwise comparisons were adjusted using the Holm-Bonferroni correction. Quantitative analysis revealed that Grok-4 (mean 4.31) and Gemini−2.5-pro (mean 4.14) significantly outperformed the human benchmark (derived from standardized expert solutions) (mean 3.56; $$P<0.001$$ ). Notably, the open-source Deepseek-r1 (mean 3.69) also achieved a statistically significant advantage over experts ( $$P<0.001$$ ). Conversely, human experts scored numerically higher than Claude-opus-4 (mean 3.50), though this difference was not statistically significant ( $$P=0.099$$ ). Qualitative analysis further highlighted human experts’ distinct strengths in strategic pathway design and humanistic care. Top-tier LLMs demonstrate capability in generating high-quality, evidence-based plans, positioning them as effective “executors” for drafting preliminary regimens. We propose a human-AI collaboration paradigm where experts function as “strategists,” focusing on optimization and humanistic care to elevate rehabilitation service quality.

Journal of NeuroEngineering and RehabilitationVol. 23(1)
Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK), University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN), Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN), Sichuan University (CN), West China Hospital of Sichuan University (CN), Zhujiang Hospital (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China (CN), Suzhou Vocational Health College (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University (CN), Southern Medical University (CN), Nanjing Medical University (CN), University of South China (CN)
University of South China
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 40%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.