e-ISSN: Pending
Negative / Null Result ReportOpen accessMedicine· cited by 12

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

Krithik Vishwanath; Anton Alyakin; Mrigayu Ghosh; Ali Hage; Sean N. Neifert; Cordelia Orillac; Nataniel J. Mandelberg; Hammad A. Khan · 2026 · Nature Medicine

WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate

The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.

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 langu

Abstract by Krithik Vishwanath; Anton Alyakin; Mrigayu Ghosh; Ali Hage; Sean N. Neifert; Cordelia Orillac; Nataniel J. Mandelberg; Hammad A. Khan, Nature Medicine (2026) — licensed CC BY 4.0.

About to run something similar?

Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.

WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.

Metadata source: OpenAlex · DOI 10.1038/s41591-026-04431-5