ArticleCommunications medicine2026
A triaxial benchmark for assessing responses from large language models in traditional Chinese medicine.
Article in Communications medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models linking traditional Chinese medicine knowledge and clinical practice.Chinese medicine · 2026Review
- Systematic Mining of Bioactive Compounds for Wound Healing FromJMIR bioinformatics and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Are AI tutors ready for the TCM classroom? A multimodal evaluation of large language models across cognitive levels in Chinese medicine education.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Large Language Model Evaluation in Traditional Chinese Medicine for Stroke: Quantitative Benchmarking Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Assessing the adherence of large language models to clinical practice guidelines in Chinese medicine: a content analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) show promise in specialized domains, but their capabilities in Traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM)-a field with complex theoretical foundations and clinical practices-remain inadequately assessed. This study aims to develop and apply a comprehensive, multidimensional benchmark to systematically evaluate LLM proficiency in this culturally-grounded medical discipline.
methodsWe constructed the TCM-3CEval benchmark to assess models across three core dimensions: mastery of fundamental knowledge, comprehension of classical texts, and clinical decision-making. The dataset comprises 450 expert-validated single-choice questions. We evaluated a diverse set of models, including general-purpose international models, Chinese general models, and medical domain-specific models. Model performance was measured by accuracy under a rigorous permutation-based consistency test to control for positional bias.
resultsWe show that while top-tier models approach human-level performance in aggregate scores, distinct deficits remain in clinical reliability. Models trained with Chinese linguistic and cultural priors demonstrate superior capability in interpreting classical texts compared to international counterparts. However, despite achieving comparable overall accuracy to human students (p > 0.05), models exhibit pronounced deficiencies in critical subdomains such as TCM Diagnostics and Syndrome Differentiation, where human reasoning remains significantly more robust. The benchmark effectively discriminates between rote memorization and the holistic inference required for clinical practice.
conclusionsThis study establishes a standardized, triaxial evaluation paradigm for assessing AI in Traditional Chinese Medicine. The findings underscore the importance of cultural-contextual alignment and domain-specific adaptation for developing capable medical LLMs. This benchmark provides a foundation for optimizing models in culturally-grounded medical domains and supports the responsible integration of AI into traditional medical education and practice.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.