SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2609.04842

MMTClinic: Multimodal, Multilingual Time Series Question Answering and Reasoning Benchmark for Clinical Domain

Abstract

Time-series data in clinical settings is crucial for capturing dynamic changes in a patient's health over time, enabling timely diagnosis, personalized treatment, and early detection of critical events. However, the development of clinically reliable and linguistically inclusive medical AI systems remains a significant challenge, primarily due to the lack of multimodal, multilingual, and time-series-grounded benchmarks that reflect the complexity of real-world clinical scenarios. To fill this gap, we present MMTClinic, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on complex reasoning and question-answering tasks involving clinical time-series. MMTClinic combines text, medical images, and multivariate physiological signals and includes 30,000 QA pairs (15,000 multiple choice questions (MCQs) and 15,000 open-ended questions) across five languages: English, Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, and Tamil. These questions cover three important clinical tasks---mortality prediction, heart rate forecasting, and SOFA score estimation. We evaluate 13 state-of-the-art LLMs in zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought settings. Our evaluation reveals notable differences in model performance across tasks, languages, and modalities, highlighting current limitations in clinical reasoning capabilities. MMTClinic provides a valuable resource for advancing multilingual, multimodal, and time-series-aware medical AI research. The dataset will be made publicly available on successful acceptance of the work.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Sourav Malakar, Harshit Nigam, Akash Ghosh, Sriparna Saha, Amlan Chakrabarti, Saptarsi Goswami, Priti Singh. 2026-09-04. MMTClinic: Multimodal, Multilingual Time Series Question Answering and Reasoning Benchmark for Clinical Domain. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.04842

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performance

Due to the selection of their training data, large language models (LLMs) perform best on standard-language inputs from languages using the Latin alphabet with large speaker populations, while disadvantaging other language varieties. Nevertheless, they can also be a versatile tool for preserving precisely such endangered languages. But do they also possess the necessary creativity and capacity for abstraction to decode phonetically encoded language the same way humans do?

cs.CL

Good Pretraining, Bad SFT: Checkpoint Quality Across the Training Stack

Language-model checkpoints are commonly selected by pretraining loss or benchmark scores, assuming that the highest-scoring checkpoint will remain the best starting point for subsequent training. We show that this assumption can fail in a full 30B mixture-of-experts training pipeline. The checkpoints that perform better after the full downstream training stack also have higher solution density, i.e., retain downstream performance under local weight perturbations.

cs.AI

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI