How Robust Are Large Language Models for Clinical Numeracy? An Empirical Study on Numerical Reasoning Abilities in Clinical Contexts

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for clinical question answering and decision support, yet safe deployment critically requires reliable handling of patient measurements in heterogeneous clinical notes. Existing evaluations of LLMs for clinical numerical reasoning provide limited operation-level coverage, restricted primarily to arithmetic computation, and rarely assess the robustness of numerical understanding across clinical note formats. We introduce ClinicNumRobBench, a benchmark of 1,624 context-question instances with ground-truth answers that evaluates four main types of clinical numeracy: value retrieval, arithmetic computation, relational comparison, and aggregation. To stress-test robustness, ClinicNumRob-Bench presents longitudinal MIMIC-IV vitalsign records in three semantically equivalent representations, including a real-world notestyle variant derived from the Open Patients dataset, and instantiates queries using 42 question templates. Experiments on 17 LLMs show that value retrieval is generally strong, with most models exceeding 85% accuracy, while relational comparison and aggregation remain challenging, with some models scoring below 15%. Fine-tuning on medical data can reduce numeracy relative to base models by over 30%, and performance drops under note-style variation indicate LLM sensitivity to format. Clinic-NumRobBench offers a rigorous testbed for clinically reliable numerical reasoning 1 .