Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source3 min read

ClinicalBench: Stress-Testing Assertion-Aware Retrieval for Cross-Admission Clinical QA on MIMIC-IV

Summary

This paper presents ClinicalBench, a 400-question benchmark for evaluating assertion-aware retrieval in clinical QA, and EpiKG, a knowledge graph that enriches facts with assertion and temporality labels. Experiments show significant improvements over dense-RAG baselines, with physician adjudication revealing that 56% of auto-generated reference answers are defective, highlighting the necessity of human review.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Alex Stinard
ClinicalBench: Stress-Testing Assertion-Aware Retrieval for Cross-Admission Clinical QA on MIMIC-IV
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[2605.11143] ClinicalBench: Stress-Testing Assertion-Aware Retrieval for Cross-Admission Clinical QA on MIMIC-IV

[Submitted on 11 May 2026]

Title:ClinicalBench: Stress-Testing Assertion-Aware Retrieval for Cross-Admission Clinical QA on MIMIC-IV

View a PDF of the paper titled ClinicalBench: Stress-Testing Assertion-Aware Retrieval for Cross-Admission Clinical QA on MIMIC-IV, by Alex Stinard

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Reasoning benchmarks measure clinical performance on clean inputs. We evaluate the step before reasoning: retrieval over real EHR notes, where negation, temporality, and family-versus-patient attribution can flip a correct answer to a wrong one. EpiKG carries an assertion label and a temporality tag with every fact in a patient knowledge graph, then routes retrieval by question intent. ClinicalBench is a 400-question test over 43 MIMIC-IV patients across 9 assertion-sensitive categories. A 7-condition ablation tests each piece of EpiKG across six LLMs (Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-OSS 20B, MedGemma 27B, Gemma 4 31B, MedGemma 1.5 4B, Qwen 3.5 35B). Three physicians blindly adjudicated 100 paired items. The author-blind primary endpoint, leave-author-out paired exact McNemar on 50 unanimous-strict items rated by two external physicians, yields +22.0 percentage points (95 percent Newcombe CI [+5.1, +31.5], p=0.0192). The architectural novelty, intent-aware KG-RAG over a Contriever dense-RAG baseline (C2b to C4g_kw on the change-excluded n=362 endpoint), is +8.84 percentage points (paired McNemar p=1.79e-3); +12.43 percentage points under oracle intent. Sensitivities agree directionally: three-rater physician majority +24.0 percentage points (subject to single-author circularity); deterministic keyword reproducibility proxy +39.5 percentage points. Across the six models, the gain shrinks as the LLM-alone baseline rises (beta=-1.123, r=-0.921, p=0.009). With n=6 this looks more like regression to the mean than encoding substituting for model size. Physician adjudication identified 56 percent of auto-generated reference answers as defective, a methodological finding indicating that NLP-pipeline clinical-QA benchmarks require physician adjudication to be usable. ClinicalBench, the frozen evaluator, three-rater adjudication data, and the EpiKG output stack are publicly released.

Comments: 46 pages including appendices (two-column preprint format). Under review at JAMIA. Code, frozen evaluator, and benchmark released at this https URL. ClinicalBench v2 is a 400-question MIMIC-IV stress test for assertion-aware retrieval

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)

Cite as: arXiv:2605.11143 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2605.11143v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.11143

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Alex Stinard [view email] [v1] Mon, 11 May 2026 18:47:52 UTC (296 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled ClinicalBench: Stress-Testing Assertion-Aware Retrieval for Cross-Admission Clinical QA on MIMIC-IV, by Alex Stinard

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-05

Change to browse by:

cs cs.AI cs.IR

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • ClinicalBench tests 400 questions over 43 MIMIC-IV patients across 9 assertion-sensitive categories.
  • EpiKG uses assertion and temporality tags to route retrieval by question intent in a patient knowledge graph.
  • Author-blind primary endpoint shows +22.0 percentage points over baseline (p=0.0192).
  • Physician adjudication found 56% of auto-generated answers defective, stressing the need for human validation.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.