# CardioBench: A Real-World Data Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Clinically Authentic Cardiovascular Care Scenarios

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25186 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.25186/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 42 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.13138/) (2022)
- [Adapted Large Language Models Can Outperform Medical Experts in Clinical Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07430/) (2023)
- [Towards Accurate Differential Diagnosis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.00164/) (2023)
- [A Framework for Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Healthcare Derived from Literature Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.02559/) (2024)
- [Foundation Metrics for Evaluating Effectiveness of Healthcare Conversations Powered by Generative AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.12444/) (2023)
- [Hidden flaws behind expert-level accuracy of multimodal GPT-4 vision in medicine](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08396/) (2024)
- [A Novel Evaluation Benchmark for Medical LLMs: Illuminating Safety and Effectiveness in Clinical Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23486/) (2025)
- [Automating Expert-Level Medical Reasoning Evaluation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.07988/) (2025)
- [ClinicRealm: Re-evaluating Large Language Models with Conventional Machine Learning for Non-Generative Clinical Prediction Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18525/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Clinical Competencies of Large Language Models with a General Practice Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.17599/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Background: Most medical large language model (LLM) benchmarks focus on examination knowledge or isolated tasks and may not reflect the longitudinal, multimodal, and safety-critical workflow of cardiovascular care. Objective: To develop CardioBench, a real-world benchmark spanning the cardiovascular care continuum, and assess LLM performance across clinical dimensions and specialist tasks. Methods: CardioBench includes 2,263 items from 13 task-specific datasets derived from de-identified cardiovascular records and examination data. Sixteen cardiology physicians conducted annotation and reference construction, followed by cross-review from two senior cardiologists. Seven LLMs generated 15,841 outputs under standardized zero-shot settings. Open-ended tasks were evaluated using key-point coverage and holistic clinical quality, while CardioEthics was scored by accuracy. Results: GPT-5.4 achieved the highest macro-average (62.55) and item-weighted mean (62.19), followed by Gemini 3.1 Pro (59.95) and Qwen 3.6 27B (59.72). GPT-5.4 ranked first in all three dimensions. CardioAuxReport performed best (86.38), whereas CardioECGRead (17.25) and CardioEthics (17.34) were lowest. The largest gaps between holistic clinical quality and key-point coverage occurred in CardioComm (52.71), CardioEmergRescue (52.05), and CardioTreatPlan (48.80). Conclusions: To our knowledge, CardioBench is the largest real-world, multi-task benchmark for LLM evaluation across the cardiovascular care continuum and offers the broadest coverage of clinically authentic cardiology scenarios reported to date. It provides a rigorous framework for identifying model strengths, clinically important omissions, and priorities for future development.