Evaluates multimodal clinical reasoning and medical knowledge by testing models on standardized medical exams, text-based QA benchmarks, and medical imaging visual question-answering tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on USMLE, MedQA, MMLU, MedXpertQA, VQA-RAD, BraTS, PathVQA, Blood Cell VQA, BreaKHis, EMBED, InBreast, CMMD, CBIS-DDS, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports percentage of correct answers.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill clinical-reasoning-vqa-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Clinical Reasoning Vqa Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-clinical-reasoning-vqa-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: clinical-reasoning-vqa-eval
description: Evaluates multimodal clinical reasoning and medical knowledge by testing models on standardized medical exams, text-based QA benchmarks, and medical imaging visual question-answering tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on USMLE, MedQA, MMLU, MedXpertQA, VQA-RAD, BraTS, PathVQA, Blood Cell VQA, BreaKHis, EMBED, InBreast, CMMD, CBIS-DDS, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports percentage of correct answers.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2603.04763
bibtex_key: florea2026gpt5clinical
confidence: high
---
# clinical-reasoning-vqa-eval
> Evaluating GPT-5 as a Multimodal Clinical Reasoner: A Landscape Commentary — Florea et al. (2026) (arXiv:2603.04763, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates multimodal clinical reasoning and medical knowledge by testing models on standardized medical exams, text-based QA benchmarks, and medical imaging visual question-answering tasks.
## Datasets
- **USMLE** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MedQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MMLU** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MedXpertQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **VQA-RAD** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **BraTS** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **PathVQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Blood Cell VQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **BreaKHis** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **EMBED** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **InBreast** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **CMMD** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **CBIS-DDS** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `percentage of correct answers` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Calculated as the number of correct predictions divided by the total number of questions, multiplied by 100. Reported as absolute percentage-point differences compared to baselines.
- `Macro-Average` — range: percent
- An unweighted mean of accuracy scores across multiple datasets or subtasks.
- `Weighted Accuracy` — range: percent
- A size-proportional mean of accuracy scores across different data sources or subsets.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Multiple-choice medical exam questions, text-based clinical QA prompts, or medical images (MRI, pathology slides, mammograms) paired with clinical questions.
**Output**: Model-generated multiple-choice selections or free-text diagnostic reasoning and answers.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def calculate_accuracy(predictions, gold):
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold) if p == g)
return (correct / len(gold)) * 100
def calculate_macro_average(dataset_accuracies):
return sum(dataset_accuracies) / len(dataset_accuracies)
def calculate_weighted_accuracy(source_accuracies, source_weights):
return sum(a * w for a, w in zip(source_accuracies, source_weights))
```
## Common pitfalls
- Confusing macro-average (unweighted mean across datasets) with weighted accuracy (size-proportional mean across sources).
- Overinterpreting accuracy gains on small-scale VQA benchmarks (e.g., VQA-RAD) without considering benchmark-specific variability or answer calibration differences.
- Assuming generalist model accuracy translates to clinical deployment readiness without comparing against domain-specific fine-tuned baselines.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> All results are reported in Table 1 as the percentage of correct answers, unless otherwise stated. All comparisons are made using absolute percentage-point differences.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{florea2026gpt5clinical,
title={Evaluating GPT-5 as a Multimodal Clinical Reasoner: A Landscape Commentary},
author={Florea et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2603.04763}
}
```
- arXiv: 2603.04763
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!