@inproceedings{ben-abacha-etal-2025-medec,
    title = "{MEDEC}: A Benchmark for Medical Error Detection and Correction in Clinical Notes",
    author = "Ben Abacha, Asma  and
      Yim, Wen-wai  and
      Fu, Yujuan  and
      Sun, Zhaoyi  and
      Yetisgen, Meliha  and
      Xia, Fei  and
      Lin, Thomas",
    editor = "Che, Wanxiang  and
      Nabende, Joyce  and
      Shutova, Ekaterina  and
      Pilehvar, Mohammad Taher",
    booktitle = "Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025",
    month = jul,
    year = "2025",
    address = "Vienna, Austria",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/corrections-2025-08/2025.findings-acl.1159/",
    doi = "10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1159",
    pages = "22539--22550",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-256-5",
    abstract = "Several studies have shown that Large Language Models (LLMs) can answer medical questions correctly, even outperforming the average human score in some medical exams. However, to our knowledge, no study has been conducted to assess the ability of language models to validate existing or generated medical text for correctness and consistency. In this paper, we introduce MEDEC (https://github.com/abachaa/MEDEC), the first publicly available benchmark for medical error detection and correction in clinical notes, covering five types of errors (Diagnosis, Management, Treatment, Pharmacotherapy, and Causal Organism). MEDEC consists of 3,848 clinical texts, including 488 clinical notes from three US hospital systems that were not previously seen by any LLM. The dataset has been used in the MEDIQA-CORR 2024 shared task to evaluate seventeen participating systems. In this paper, we describe the data creation methods and we evaluate recent LLMs (e.g., o1-preview, GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and DeepSeek-R1) for the tasks of detecting and correcting medical errors requiring both medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities. We also conducted a comparative study where two medical doctors performed the same task on the MEDEC test set. The results showed that MEDEC is a sufficiently challenging benchmark to assess the ability of models to validate existing or generated notes and to correct medical errors. We also found that although recent LLMs have a good performance in error detection and correction, they are still outperformed by medical doctors in these tasks. We discuss the potential factors behind this gap, the insights from our experiments, the limitations of current evaluation metrics, and share potential pointers for future research."
}