MedCalc-Bench Verified
Models extract values from patient notes and compute results for 55 medical calculators. Verified release of MedCalc-Bench with corrected labels.
Anthropic runs the code-augmented setting with a Python tool. Scores on the original MedCalc-Bench are not comparable.
In the authors’ words
As opposed to evaluating computation and logic-based reasoning, current benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in medicine are primarily focused on question-answering involving domain knowledge and descriptive reasoning. While such qualitative capabilities are vital to medical diagnosis, in real-world scenarios, doctors frequently use clinical calculators that follow quantitative equations and rule-based reasoning paradigms for evidence-based decision support. To this end, we propose MedCalc-Bench, a first-of-its-kind dataset focused on evaluating the medical calculation capability of LLMs. MedCalc-Bench contains an evaluation set of over 1000 manually reviewed instances from 55 different medical calculation tasks. Each instance in MedCalc-Bench consists of a patient note, a question requesting to compute a specific medical value, a ground truth answer, and a step-by-step explanation showing how the answer is obtained. While our evaluation results show the potential of LLMs in this area, none of them are effective enough for clinical settings. Common issues include extracting the incorrect entities, not using the correct equation or rules for a calculation task, or incorrectly performing the arithmetic for the computation. We hope our study highlights the quantitative knowledge and reasoning gaps in LLMs within medical settings, encouraging future improvements of LLMs for various clinical calculation tasks.
- Level
- Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads with 86.2%
Best score per model as labs report them in their own cards. Labs pick their own settings, so these compare less cleanly than independent runs.
| # | Model | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 86.2% | Feb 2026 | Model card |
The best score passed 85% in Feb 2026
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Labs report it only in system cards
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark. Some system cards do, below.
One system card reports it
Besides launch posts, we read the system cards, model cards and technical reports labs publish with a release. They report far more, including safety and frontier-risk tests.
| Date | Document | Score | As the document writes it | Section |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 Feb 2026 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 system card | 86.2 | MedCalc-Bench Verified accuracy, code-augmented with Python REPL, adaptive thinking, max effort, average of 5 runs (2.21.2) | Health |
More in Law, finance and medicine
- HealthBench Professional In use 525 physician-authored tasks from real clinician chats (care consult, documentation, research) with physician-adjudicated rubrics. Claude Sonnet 5.5 69.2%
- MedXpertQA-MM In use Models answer expert-level medical exam questions that combine images with clinical records and test results. Scoring is accuracy.
Qwen 3.8 Max 80.4%
- HealthBench In use 5,000 realistic health conversations graded against physician-written rubrics. A length-adjusted variant penalizes verbosity. GPT-5 67.2%
- KBL In use Models answer Korean legal knowledge and reasoning tasks and Korean bar exam questions. It has 7 knowledge tasks, 4 reasoning tasks and 2,510 bar exam items.
Solar Pro 4 77.5%
- KorMedMCQA In use Models answer 7,469 multiple-choice questions from Korean licensing exams for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and dentists, held from 2012 to 2024.
Solar Pro 4 93.2%
- PRBench In use Model answers 1,100 expert-written law and finance questions. LLM judge grades against weighted expert rubrics of 10-30 criteria each.
Muse Spark 1.3 61.6%