Clinical Benchmarks

Llama 3.1 70B

Released 23 Jul 2024128K context70BopenAlso written as Llama-3.1-70BCompare with other models

Clinical Benchmarks Index
25.4rank 118 of 148; 44.1 × 0.577 = 25.4, from 1 of 10 boards
Boards
1 of 13
Results
76 on secondary measures
Latest measurement
Aug 2026

Results

Each line is placed on its own board. Dark tick: the board leader.

Safety

  1. MedPIC
    zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    55.7
    Rank 15 of 28Leader Gemini-3.1-Pro 80.7
    Independent run
    Measured Aug 2026

Secondary measures

Safety

  1. MedPIC, Risk activation accuracy
    zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    63.4
    Rank 8 of 28Leader MedGemma-27B-Text 76.1
    Independent run
    Measured Aug 2026
  2. MedPIC, Counterfactual accuracy (CF)
    zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    47.0
    Rank 15 of 28Leader Gemini-3.1-Pro 69.9
    Independent run
    Measured Aug 2026
  3. MedPIC, Guideline-following accuracy (GF)
    zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    61.3
    Rank 16 of 28Leader Gemini-3.1-Pro 87.7
    Independent run
    Measured Aug 2026
  4. MedPIC, Linked counterfactual pair accuracy
    zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    16.9
    Rank 16 of 28Leader Gemini-3.1-Pro 48.3
    Independent run
    Measured Aug 2026
  5. MedPIC, Risk deactivation accuracy
    zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    32.4
    Rank 16 of 28Leader Gemini-3.1-Pro 77.9
    Independent run
    Measured Aug 2026
  6. MedPIC, Published GF-minus-CF accuracy gap
    zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    14.3
    Descriptive measure, not ranked
    Independent run
    Measured Aug 2026

Sources

Open a line for the quote and page.

  1. 15MedPIC zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match 55.7
    Printed as 55.7Independent run, measured Aug 2026Configuration: zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    Evaluating Counterfactual Sensitivity to Patient Information in Medication-Safety Reasoning paper, Zhitian Hou, Yuhang Liu, Pengkai Wang, Zeyu Liu, Guanghao Zhu, Zheng Liu, Shuo Cai, Congkai Xie, Zhijie Sang, Kun Zeng, Hongxia Yang (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University; InfiX.ai; Sun Yat-sen University), 4 Aug 2026. arXiv:2608.03028v1, Section 4, Table 2 (#S4.T2), row Llama-3.1-70B, column Overall; row order: Model | Overall | GF | CF | Δ_GF−CF | Activation | Deactivation | Pair
    Llama-3.1-70B | 55.7 | 61.3 | 47.0 | 14.3 | 63.4 | 32.4 | 16.9
    Every result from this document
  2. 16MedPIC, Guideline-following accuracy (GF) zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match 61.3
    Printed as 61.3Independent run, measured Aug 2026Configuration: zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    Evaluating Counterfactual Sensitivity to Patient Information in Medication-Safety Reasoning paper, Zhitian Hou, Yuhang Liu, Pengkai Wang, Zeyu Liu, Guanghao Zhu, Zheng Liu, Shuo Cai, Congkai Xie, Zhijie Sang, Kun Zeng, Hongxia Yang (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University; InfiX.ai; Sun Yat-sen University), 4 Aug 2026. arXiv:2608.03028v1, Section 4, Table 2 (#S4.T2), row Llama-3.1-70B, column GF; row order: Model | Overall | GF | CF | Δ_GF−CF | Activation | Deactivation | Pair
    Llama-3.1-70B | 55.7 | 61.3 | 47.0 | 14.3 | 63.4 | 32.4 | 16.9
    Every result from this document
  3. 15MedPIC, Counterfactual accuracy (CF) zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match 47.0
    Printed as 47.0Independent run, measured Aug 2026Configuration: zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    Evaluating Counterfactual Sensitivity to Patient Information in Medication-Safety Reasoning paper, Zhitian Hou, Yuhang Liu, Pengkai Wang, Zeyu Liu, Guanghao Zhu, Zheng Liu, Shuo Cai, Congkai Xie, Zhijie Sang, Kun Zeng, Hongxia Yang (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University; InfiX.ai; Sun Yat-sen University), 4 Aug 2026. arXiv:2608.03028v1, Section 4, Table 2 (#S4.T2), row Llama-3.1-70B, column CF; row order: Model | Overall | GF | CF | Δ_GF−CF | Activation | Deactivation | Pair
    Llama-3.1-70B | 55.7 | 61.3 | 47.0 | 14.3 | 63.4 | 32.4 | 16.9
    Every result from this document
  4. 16MedPIC, Linked counterfactual pair accuracy zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match 16.9
    Printed as 16.9Independent run, measured Aug 2026Configuration: zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    Evaluating Counterfactual Sensitivity to Patient Information in Medication-Safety Reasoning paper, Zhitian Hou, Yuhang Liu, Pengkai Wang, Zeyu Liu, Guanghao Zhu, Zheng Liu, Shuo Cai, Congkai Xie, Zhijie Sang, Kun Zeng, Hongxia Yang (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University; InfiX.ai; Sun Yat-sen University), 4 Aug 2026. arXiv:2608.03028v1, Section 4, Table 2 (#S4.T2), row Llama-3.1-70B, column Pair; row order: Model | Overall | GF | CF | Δ_GF−CF | Activation | Deactivation | Pair
    Llama-3.1-70B | 55.7 | 61.3 | 47.0 | 14.3 | 63.4 | 32.4 | 16.9
    Every result from this document
  5. 8MedPIC, Risk activation accuracy zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match 63.4
    Printed as 63.4Independent run, measured Aug 2026Configuration: zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    Evaluating Counterfactual Sensitivity to Patient Information in Medication-Safety Reasoning paper, Zhitian Hou, Yuhang Liu, Pengkai Wang, Zeyu Liu, Guanghao Zhu, Zheng Liu, Shuo Cai, Congkai Xie, Zhijie Sang, Kun Zeng, Hongxia Yang (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University; InfiX.ai; Sun Yat-sen University), 4 Aug 2026. arXiv:2608.03028v1, Section 4, Table 2 (#S4.T2), row Llama-3.1-70B, column Activation; row order: Model | Overall | GF | CF | Δ_GF−CF | Activation | Deactivation | Pair
    Llama-3.1-70B | 55.7 | 61.3 | 47.0 | 14.3 | 63.4 | 32.4 | 16.9
    Every result from this document
  6. 16MedPIC, Risk deactivation accuracy zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match 32.4
    Printed as 32.4Independent run, measured Aug 2026Configuration: zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    Evaluating Counterfactual Sensitivity to Patient Information in Medication-Safety Reasoning paper, Zhitian Hou, Yuhang Liu, Pengkai Wang, Zeyu Liu, Guanghao Zhu, Zheng Liu, Shuo Cai, Congkai Xie, Zhijie Sang, Kun Zeng, Hongxia Yang (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University; InfiX.ai; Sun Yat-sen University), 4 Aug 2026. arXiv:2608.03028v1, Section 4, Table 2 (#S4.T2), row Llama-3.1-70B, column Deactivation; row order: Model | Overall | GF | CF | Δ_GF−CF | Activation | Deactivation | Pair
    Llama-3.1-70B | 55.7 | 61.3 | 47.0 | 14.3 | 63.4 | 32.4 | 16.9
    Every result from this document
  7. –MedPIC, Published GF-minus-CF accuracy gap zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match 14.3
    Printed as 14.3Independent run, measured Aug 2026Configuration: zero-shot; independent questions; exact option-set match
    Evaluating Counterfactual Sensitivity to Patient Information in Medication-Safety Reasoning paper, Zhitian Hou, Yuhang Liu, Pengkai Wang, Zeyu Liu, Guanghao Zhu, Zheng Liu, Shuo Cai, Congkai Xie, Zhijie Sang, Kun Zeng, Hongxia Yang (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University; InfiX.ai; Sun Yat-sen University), 4 Aug 2026. arXiv:2608.03028v1, Section 4, Table 2 (#S4.T2), row Llama-3.1-70B, column Δ_GF−CF; row order: Model | Overall | GF | CF | Δ_GF−CF | Activation | Deactivation | Pair
    Llama-3.1-70B | 55.7 | 61.3 | 47.0 | 14.3 | 63.4 | 32.4 | 16.9
    Every result from this document

Other Meta models: Llama 3.1 8B, Llama 4 Maverick, Llama 4 Scout, Muse Spark, Muse Spark 1.1, Muse Spark 1.2