ThReadMed-QA: A Multi-Turn Medical Dialogue Benchmark from Real Patient Questions

Medical benchmarks are dominated by single-turn, multiple-choice clinical cases that poorly reflect real consultations. Practically, clinicians elicit evidence interactively and patient communication varies widely. We introduce MedRoundsQA, a multi-turn diagnostic benchmark derived from 1,387 board-exam cases across 17 specialties. Each case is converted into a structured 24-slot clinical record, and then instantiated as controlled doctor-patient dual-agent dialogues under varying patient personas, with the underlying clinical content held fixed. We further classify cases by difficulty using model-based uncertainty to enable easy-to-hard analysis. Evaluations of fifteen LLM doctor agents show that (i) moving from a single-turn diagnosis on the standardized records to multi-turn consultations causes large degradations of roughly 13-39 points; (ii) more turns reliably improves question relevance, but diagnostic accuracy exhibits diminishing returns and typically plateaus after 6-12 turns; and (iii) patient persona differences can shift diagnosis accuracy by about 7-8 points (lowest to highest education), highlighting equity risks that single-turn benchmarks miss.

Patients seeking medical information often ask questions that embed incorrect assumptions or misconceptions. In such cases, safe medical communication requires not only answering the question, but identifying and correcting the underlying false belief. These interactions naturally unfold over multiple turns, a pattern now mirrored in interactions with LLMs. Yet current evaluation frameworks do not capture model behavior in these settings, where misconceptions can emerge, persist, or evolve over the course of a conversation. Whether LLMs can reliably correct such misconceptions over time remains largely unexamined. To study this, we introduce ThReadMed-QA, a multi-turn medical dialogue dataset of 2,437 patient-physician conversation threads comprising 8,204 question-answer pairs, derived from real patient interactions on AskDocs. This dataset enables systematic evaluation of whether models can detect and correct misconceptions under a multi-turn context. We evaluate five LLMs using a rubric-based LLM-as-a-Judge framework that scores responses based on their ability to identify and correct misconceptions. Our experiments reveal a consistent pattern: even frontier models that can address misconceptions in a single interaction degrade substantially over subsequent turns. GPT-5 and Claude-Haiku correct these false presuppositions around 85% on initial questions but drop to roughly 50% within two follow-ups. An oracle analysis replacing prior model outputs with physician responses shows that much of the degradation is driven by error propagation, while performance remains imperfect even under correct context. Even when models tend to correct misconceptions initially, their performance degrades substantially over later turns, leading to inconsistent and potentially unsafe guidance in patient-facing settings and highlighting the need for evaluation frameworks that capture multi-turn behavior.

Large language models (LLMs) have made substantial progress on medical question-answering, yet effective medical dialogue also requires learning to ask questions that uncover relevant patient information. To train such dialogue policies, a common pipeline combines supervised fine-tuning with reinforcement learning (RL) based on final diagnostic correctness. However, this outcome-based supervision does not directly distinguish the contributions of individual questions and provides no question-level feedback for unexecuted alternatives. To address this gap, we introduce PCQC (Privileged Counterfactual Question Credit), which uses privileged patient information during training to learn from questions never asked. During training, PCQC makes alternative questions directly comparable at the same dialogue state by using privileged patient facts to construct their answers. A frozen diagnostic scorer evaluates the diagnostic utility of each resulting question-answer pair by how strongly it supports the correct diagnosis. PCQC turns these comparisons into relative question credit that teaches the policy which questions to favor, directly supervising both executed and unexecuted questions alongside outcome-based RL without requiring complete rollouts for the unexecuted alternatives. Extensive experiments across four medical benchmarks demonstrate that PCQC achieves 63.10% mean diagnostic accuracy, outperforming GRPO and ATPO by 4.38 and 4.21 percentage points, respectively. These gains are achieved with 33.1% fewer inquiry turns than GRPO.