Evidence-Grounded Subspecialty Reasoning: Evaluating a Curated Clinical Intelligence Layer on the 2025 Endocrinology Board-Style Examination

Across medical specialties, clinical practice is anchored in evidence-based guidelines that codify best studied diagnostic and treatment pathways. These pathways routinely fall short for the long tail of real-world care not covered by guidelines. Most medical large language models (LLMs), however, are trained to encode common, guideline-focused medical knowledge in their parameters. Current evaluations test models primarily on recalling and reasoning with this memorized content, often in multiple-choice settings. Given the fundamental importance of evidence-based reasoning in medicine, it is neither feasible nor reliable to depend on memorization in practice. To address this gap, we introduce OGCaReBench, a free-form retrieval-focused benchmark aimed at evaluating LLMs at answering clinical questions that require going beyond typical guidelines. Extracted from published medical case reports and validated by medical experts, OGCaReBench contains long-form clinical questions requiring free-text answers, providing a systematic framework for assessing open-ended medical reasoning in rare, case-based scenarios. Our experiments reveal that even the best-performing baseline (GPT-5.2) correctly answers only 56% of our benchmark with specialized models only reaching 42%. Augmenting models with retrieved medical articles improves this performance to up to 82% (using GPT-5.2) highlighting the importance of evidence-grounding for real-world medical reasoning tasks. This work thus establishes a foundation for benchmarking and advancing both general-purpose and medical LLMs to produce reliable answers in challenging clinical contexts.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance on medical exam-style tasks, motivating growing interest in their deployment in real-world clinical settings. However, clinical decision-making is inherently safety-critical, context-dependent, and conducted under evolving evidence. In such situations, reliable LLM performance depends not on factual recall alone, but on robust medical reasoning. In this work, we present a comprehensive review of medical reasoning with LLMs. Grounded in cognitive theories of clinical reasoning, we conceptualize medical reasoning as an iterative process of abduction, deduction, and induction, and organize existing methods into seven major technical routes spanning training-based and training-free approaches. We further conduct a unified cross-benchmark evaluation of representative medical reasoning models under a consistent experimental setting, enabling a more systematic and comparable assessment of the empirical impact of existing methods. To better assess clinically grounded reasoning, we introduce MR-Bench, a benchmark derived from real-world hospital data. Evaluations on MR-Bench expose a pronounced gap between exam-level performance and accuracy on authentic clinical decision tasks. Overall, this survey provides a unified view of existing medical reasoning methods, benchmarks, and evaluation practices, and highlights key gaps between current model performance and the requirements of real-world clinical reasoning.

Large language models perform strongly on medical knowledge benchmarks, but reliable clinical deployment requires agents to conduct defensible investigations over heterogeneous, longitudinal records: determining what evidence is needed, retrieving and reconciling structured and free-text data, grounding conclusions in verifiable evidence, and deferring cases that cannot be resolved reliably. We introduce CliniCARE-Bench (Clinical Calibrated Audit of Medical Reasoning in EHR), a benchmark for retrospective clinical audit: 25 clinician-validated scenarios instantiated as 750 patient-specific cases over real-patient-derived MIMIC-IV data. Systems investigate each case through a governed, logged tool environment for record retrieval, computation, and policy access, and return one of four verdicts---Yes, No, Indeterminate: Lack of Data, or Indeterminate: Medically Ambiguous---the last two separating missing evidence from residual medical ambiguity. Beyond verdict accuracy, we score patient-evidence and policy grounding, process adherence, calibrated abstention, reliability, and efficiency against case-level reference verdicts produced by independent multi-model adjudication and calibrated against Clinical Board review. Every retrieval, computation, and report is replayable, so the investigation trace is inspectable and scorable. To our knowledge, CliniCARE-Bench is the first deployment-oriented clinical-agent benchmark to jointly evaluate real longitudinal EHR investigation, claim-level evidence grounding, governing-policy use, process adherence, and calibrated abstention within a common patient-level adjudication framework. Across 16 agentic systems, four-way accuracy spans 65.3-76.1%, but raw accuracy overstates investigation quality. Defect-free accuracy, which credits a verdict only when correct and free of prohibited shortcuts, is 4.8-14.8 points lower and reorders the leaderboard.