MRI-Eval: A Tiered Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Performance on MRI Physics and GE Scanner Operations Knowledge

TL;DR

MRI-Eval introduces a tiered benchmark for evaluating large language models on MRI physics and GE scanner operational knowledge, revealing high multiple-choice accuracy but weaker free-text recall, especially for vendor-specific details.

Contribution

This work presents a novel, comprehensive MRI-focused benchmark with tiered difficulty, highlighting limitations of current LLMs in vendor-specific operational knowledge.

Findings

High overall MCQ accuracy (93.2%-97.1%) across models.

GE scanner operations scored lowest among categories.

Stem-only accuracy drops significantly, especially for GE-specific questions.

Abstract

Background: Existing MRI LLM benchmarks rely mainly on review-book multiple-choice questions, where top proprietary models already score highly, limiting discrimination. No systematic benchmark has evaluated vendor-specific scanner operational knowledge central to research MRI practice. Purpose: We developed MRI-Eval, a tiered benchmark for relative model comparison on MRI physics and GE scanner operations knowledge using primary multiple-choice questions (MCQ), with stem-only and primed diagnostic conditions as complementary analyses. Methods: MRI-Eval includes 1365 scored items across nine categories and three difficulty tiers from textbooks, GE scanner manuals, programming course materials, and expert-generated questions. Five model families were evaluated (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Llama 3.3 70B). MCQ was primary; stem-only removed options and used an independent LLM judge; primed stem-only tested responses to incorrect user claims. Results: Overall MCQ accuracy was 93.2% to 97.1%. GE scanner operations was the lowest category for every model (88.2% to 94.6%). In stem-only, frontier-model accuracy fell to 58.4% to 61.1%, and Llama 3.3 70B fell to 37.1%; GE scanner operations stem-only accuracy was 13.8% to 29.8%. Conclusion: High MCQ performance can mask weak free-text recall, especially for vendor-specific operational knowledge. MRI-Eval is most informative as a relative comparison benchmark rather than an absolute competency measure and supports caution in using raw LLM outputs for GE-specific protocol guidance.