MedMT-Bench: Can LLMs Memorize and Understand Long Multi-Turn Conversations in Medical Scenarios?

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.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve high accuracy in medical diagnosis when all clinical information is provided in a single turn, yet how they behave under multi-turn evidence accumulation closer to real clinical reasoning remains unexplored. We introduce MINT (Medical Incremental N-Turn Benchmark), a high-fidelity, multi-turn medical diagnosis benchmark comprising 1,035 cases with clinically labeled evidence shards, controlled turn granularity, and information-preserving decomposition. Through systematic evaluation of 11 LLMs on MINT, we uncover three persistent behavioral patterns that significantly impact diagnostic decisions: (1) intent to answer, models rush to answer before sufficient evidence has been observed, with over 55% of answers committed within the first two turns; (2) self-correction, incorrect-to-correct answer revisions occur at up to 10.6 times the rate of correct-to-incorrect flips, revealing a latent capacity for self-correction that premature commitment forecloses; and (3) strong lures, clinically salient information such as laboratory results trigger premature answering even when models are explicitly instructed to wait. We translate these findings into clinically actionable guidance: deferring the diagnostic question to later turns reduces premature answering and improves accuracy at the first point of commitment by up to 62.6%, while reserving salient clinical evidence for later turns prevents a catastrophic accuracy drop of up to 23.3% caused by premature commitment. Our work provides both a controlled evaluation framework and concrete recommendations for improving the reliability of LLMs in multi-turn medical diagnosis.

Large language models (LLMs) now reach expert-level scores on medical licensing exams, encouraging the assumption that high scores imply safe medical judgment while patients increasingly use them for health advice. We show this assumption is fragile: when misleading context is injected into questions that LLMs originally answer correctly, they abandon the correct answer. We call the ability to maintain correct judgment under adversarial context epistemic resilience, and introduce MedMisBench to measure it. MedMisBench contains 10,932 medical question items and 48,889 misleading context-option pairs spanning medical reasoning, agentic capability, and patient-journey evaluation. Across 11 model configurations, mean accuracy falls from 71.1% on original questions to 38.0% under focused misleading context, with 51.5% attack success. The most damaging injections are formal, rule-like fabrications: authority-framed falsehoods reach 69.5% attack success and exception-poisoning claims reach 64.1%. A 14-member clinical panel from 7 countries identified serious potential harm in 38.2% of reviewed cases. MedMisBench exposes a structural blind spot in LLM evaluation in medical settings: existing benchmarks measure what models know, but not whether they preserve correct medical judgment under misleading context.