Cited by 66Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareElectronic Health Records Systems

MedAgentBench: a virtual EHR environment to benchmark medical LLM agents

Open access
Jiang, Yixing, Black, Kameron C., Geng, Gloria, Park, Danny, Zou, James, Ng, Andrew Y., Chen, Jonathan H.·2025·NEJM AI

Abstract

BACKGROUND Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant advancements, particularly in their ability to serve as agents, thereby surpassing their traditional role as chatbots.These agents can leverage their planning and tool utilization capabilities to address tasks specified at a high level.This suggests new potential to reduce the burden of administrative tasks and address current health care staff shortages.However, a standardized dataset to benchmark the agent capabilities of LLMs in medical applications is currently lacking, making it difficult to evaluate their performance on complex tasks in interactive health care environments. METHODSTo address this gap in the deployment of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) in health care, we introduce MedAgentBench, a broad evaluation suite designed to assess the agent capabilities of LLMs within medical records contexts.MedAgentBench encompasses 300 patient-specific clinically derived tasks from 10 categories written by human physicians, realistic profiles of 100 patients with over 700,000 data elements, a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources-compliant interactive environment, and an accompanying codebase.The environment uses standard application programming interfaces and communication infrastructure used in modern electronic health record (EHR) systems so that it can be easily migrated into live EHR systems. RESULTSMedAgentBench presents an unsaturated agent-oriented benchmark at which current state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit some ability to succeed.The best model (Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2) achieves a success rate of 69.67%.However, there is still substantial room for improvement, which gives the community a clear direction for future optimization efforts.Furthermore, there is significant variation in performance across task categories.CONCLUSIONS Agent-based task frameworks and benchmarks are the necessary next step to advance the potential and capabilities for effectively improving and integrating AI systems into clinical workflows.MedAgentBench establishes this and is publicly available at https://github .com /stanfordmlgroup /MedAgentBench, offering a valuable framework for model developers to track progress and drive continuous improvements in the agent capabilities of LLMs within the medical domain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/aidbp2500144

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [7]7. Sahni NR, Carrus B. Artificial intelligence in US health care delivery. N Engl J Med 2023;389:348-358. DOI: 10 .1056 / NEJMra2204673.
  2. [18]18. Pal A, Umapathi LK, Sankarasubbu M. Medmcqa: a large-scale multi-subject multi-choice dataset for medical domain question answering. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning. PMLR, 2022:248-260. (https://proceedings.mlr. press/v174/pal22a.html).
  3. [20]20. Johri S, Jeong J, Tran BA, et al. CRAFT-MD: a conversational eval- uation framework for comprehensive assessment of clinical LLMs. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 2024 Spring Symposium on Clinical Foundation Models. Washington, DC: AAAI Press, 2024 (https:// openreview.net/forum?id=Bk2nbTDtm8).
  4. [26]26. Li XL, Liu EZ, Liang P, Hashimoto T. Autobencher: creating salient, novel, difficult datasets for language models. 2024 (https:// arxiv.org/html/2407.08351v1). Preprint.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jiang, Y., Black, K. C., Geng, G., Park, D., Zou, J., Ng, A. Y., & Chen, J. H.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
NEJM AI
Published
2025-08-28
Volume
2
Issue
9
Pages
AIdbp2500144-AIdbp2500144
ISSN
2836-9386 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4413801638
Cited by
66
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 4
FWCI
15.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NEJM AI (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
LLM agents, benchmarking, electronic health records, agentic AI, medical records, FHIR, clinical workflow, administrative burden, patient information, Claude 3.5 Sonnet
MeSH terms
Large Language Models, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Benchmarking, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review