General-purpose large language models outperform specialized clinical AI tools on medical benchmarks

Specialized clinical artificial intelligence (AI) tools are entering medical practice despite scarce independent evaluation. We quantitatively evaluate two clinical AI tools, OpenEvidence and UpToDate Expert AI, built on large language models (LLMs) against three frontier LLMs: GPT-5.2, Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6. Our evaluation has three stages: (1) 500 MedQA questions testing medical knowledge, (2) 500 HealthBench items measuring alignment with clinicians and (3) the real clinical queries (RCQ) benchmark, built from 100 de-identified queries from physicians to a general-purpose language model in a live clinical environment. For the RCQ benchmark, 12 US clinicians performed randomized, blinded review of model outputs, producing 1,800 model-question annotations. Frontier LLMs outperformed clinical AI tools in all three evaluations. Clinical AI tools performed comparably to auto-enabled Google Search AI Overview on the RCQ. These findings highlight the need for independent, real-world evaluation of AI tools before they enter clinical settings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Medicine
Published
2026-06-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-026-04431-5
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

General-purpose large language models outperform specialized clinical AI tools on medical benchmarks

Jie Yao, Nataniel J. Mandelberg, Daniel Alexander Alber, Jin Vivian Lee et al.
Nature Medicine
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

General-purpose large language models outperform specialized clinical AI tools on medical benchmarks

Jie Yao, Nataniel J. Mandelberg, Daniel Alexander Alber, Jin Vivian Lee, Eric K. Oermann, Ali Hage, Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs, Hammad A. Khan, Krithik Vishwanath, William Small, Aakaash Varma, Mrigayu Ghosh, D. Brock Hewitt, Anton Alyakin, Sean N. Neifert, Cordelia Orillac
article en

Abstract

Specialized clinical artificial intelligence (AI) tools are entering medical practice despite scarce independent evaluation. We quantitatively evaluate two clinical AI tools, OpenEvidence and UpToDate Expert AI, built on large language models (LLMs) against three frontier LLMs: GPT-5.2, Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6. Our evaluation has three stages: (1) 500 MedQA questions testing medical knowledge, (2) 500 HealthBench items measuring alignment with clinicians and (3) the real clinical queries (RCQ) benchmark, built from 100 de-identified queries from physicians to a general-purpose language model in a live clinical environment. For the RCQ benchmark, 12 US clinicians performed randomized, blinded review of model outputs, producing 1,800 model-question annotations. Frontier LLMs outperformed clinical AI tools in all three evaluations. Clinical AI tools performed comparably to auto-enabled Google Search AI Overview on the RCQ. These findings highlight the need for independent, real-world evaluation of AI tools before they enter clinical settings.

Nature Medicine
Long Island University (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US), NYU Langone Health (US), Médecins Sans Frontières (US), Neurological Surgery (US), New York University (US), The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
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.