跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-08 06:08 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-07 06:21 — 2026-11-08 06:21(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-08 06:08最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,057 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-08 06:06(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.08369

NPCBench:面向鼻咽癌多模态诊疗路径推理的临床学徒制基准

NPCBench: A Clinical Apprenticeship Benchmark for Multimodal Care-Pathway Reasoning in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Pengkai Wang, Wei-Wei Zhang, Yan Li, Min Tang, Zhitian Hou, Zeyu Liu, Guanghao Zhu, Yuanyi Wang 等 16 位作者

AI 速读 基于摘要

作者提出 NPCBench,一个模拟专科培训进阶的鼻咽癌临床学徒制基准,用于评估模型能否在多模态证据下完成从知识到纵向诊疗路径的连贯推理。

cs.AI

查看原文摘要

Current medical benchmarks typically break down clinical competence into isolated factual questions, single-image tasks, or static case vignettes. These tests score individual answers, but reveal less about whether a model can integrate subspecialty knowledge with multimodal evidence and track a patient's condition throughout a course of care. To close this gap, we introduce NPCBench, a clinical apprenticeship benchmark for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). NPCBench mirrors specialist training, from guideline and foundational knowledge to case planning, longitudinal review, CarePath integration, and open-ended consultation. It contains 4,777 component and consultation items and a 100-patient CarePath cohort with 417 scored diagnostic and care tasks. The episode-level evaluation tests whether diagnostic and care answers are jointly correct within a care pathway. By linking stepwise tasks to patient-level care trajectories, NPCBench evaluates whether models ground decisions in visual evidence, interpret changes in patient state, and meet clinical requirements in consultation. Across 30 evaluated models, we observe a composition gap: strong performance on individual tasks does not ensure jointly correct diagnostic and care answers for the same patient. Among 21 multimodal models, strict CarePath success reaches at most 23%. Paired controls and physician calibration further examine evidence grounding, longitudinal revision, and consultation judging. Overall, NPCBench broadens the evaluation of medical artificial intelligence beyond static question-answering paradigms to an apprenticeship-oriented assessment of clinical workflows, thereby offering a testbed for evidence-based and temporally coherent reasoning in oncology care.