Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

MedAlign: A Clinician-Generated Dataset for Instruction Following with Electronic Medical Records

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2308.14089 v2 pith:VCFIEOJG submitted 2023-08-27 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

MedAlign: A Clinician-Generated Dataset for Instruction Following with Electronic Medical Records

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG
keywords medalignlanguagellmscliniciansdatainstructionsnaturalaccuracy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow natural language instructions with human-level fluency suggests many opportunities in healthcare to reduce administrative burden and improve quality of care. However, evaluating LLMs on realistic text generation tasks for healthcare remains challenging. Existing question answering datasets for electronic health record (EHR) data fail to capture the complexity of information needs and documentation burdens experienced by clinicians. To address these challenges, we introduce MedAlign, a benchmark dataset of 983 natural language instructions for EHR data. MedAlign is curated by 15 clinicians (7 specialities), includes clinician-written reference responses for 303 instructions, and provides 276 longitudinal EHRs for grounding instruction-response pairs. We used MedAlign to evaluate 6 general domain LLMs, having clinicians rank the accuracy and quality of each LLM response. We found high error rates, ranging from 35% (GPT-4) to 68% (MPT-7B-Instruct), and an 8.3% drop in accuracy moving from 32k to 2k context lengths for GPT-4. Finally, we report correlations between clinician rankings and automated natural language generation metrics as a way to rank LLMs without human review. We make MedAlign available under a research data use agreement to enable LLM evaluations on tasks aligned with clinician needs and preferences.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. RECON: Benchmarking Agent Memory for Compositional Reasoning over Long Contexts

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    RECON measures whether long-context AI agents can reason over evidence chains where facts are invalidated, conflict, and cascade, and finds state-of-the-art systems reach only 22.4% accuracy even with full contexts.

  2. CLIR-Bench: Benchmarking Multimodal Question Answering over Irregular Clinical Time Series

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    CLIR-Bench shows generalist and time-series LLMs struggle to ground clinical answers in sparse irregular ICU evidence, with top accuracy near 50% and weak causal evidence use.

  3. Capabilities of Gemini Models in Medicine

    cs.AI 2024-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Med-Gemini sets new records on 10 of 14 medical benchmarks including 91.1% on MedQA-USMLE, beats GPT-4V by 44.5% on multimodal tasks, and surpasses humans on medical text summarization.

  4. Ten Headache Specialists versus Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Literature Summarization: A Critical Evaluation and Comparison

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Headache specialists preferred their own literature summaries over those from Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama 3.1 in a blinded evaluation, though AI summaries were sometimes indistinguishable.