From Physician Expertise to Clinical Agents: Preserving, Standardizing, and Scaling Physicians' Medical Expertise with Lightweight LLM

Reliable evaluation of large language models in traditional Chinese medicine remains limited because existing benchmarks mainly focus on examination-style question answering or isolated generative tasks. We developed LingLanMedBench, a unified benchmark comprising 25,620 expert-verified items across 13 subtasks and five domains, covering knowledge, language understanding, information extraction, and diagnostic-therapeutic decision-making. LingLanMedBench standardizes task formats and evaluation metrics and further incorporates synonym-tolerant clinical-label matching, empirically derived hard subsets, and decision-recognition reformulations of open-ended clinical tasks. Fourteen open-source and proprietary models were evaluated under a standardized zero-shot protocol. Performance varied substantially across domains, model families, task formulations, and difficulty levels. The leading overall score decreased from 51.1 on the full benchmark to 31.9 on the hard subsets. Prescription performance also differed markedly between open-ended generation, with F1 scores of 32.7 and 20.3, and decision recognition, with accuracies of 90.6 and 56.8 on the full and hard subsets, respectively. These findings reveal a substantial gap between knowledge-oriented performance and clinically faithful reasoning. LingLanMedBench provides a standardized and reproducible framework for characterizing current capabilities, identifying systematic limitations, and tracking meaningful progress in large language models for traditional Chinese medicine.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate clinical narratives that are insufficiently grounded in patient-specific evidence. In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), errors can propagate from etiology and pathogenesis through syndrome diagnosis and treatment principles to prescription generation. We developed TCMClinicalReason-Bench using 2,000 multicenter electronic health record cases to distinguish case-grounded responses from fluent but unsupported diagnostic and therapeutic conclusions. Five general-purpose and two TCM-specific LLMs were evaluated in zero-shot settings. An evidence-constrained rubric assessed seven diagnostic and therapeutic components and three cross-block relations, allowing case-supported alternatives. Qwen3.7-Plus with TCM retrieval served as the automated judge, alongside parallel blinded ratings by five senior TCM clinicians on a 600-case subset. Structural completeness was nearly saturated (99.3-100.0%), but normalized content scores ranged from 40.7% to 54.1%. The five general-purpose models averaged 50.0%, versus 41.3% for the two smaller TCM-specific models. Cross-block logic consistency ranged from 60.8% to 66.8% and correlated moderately with content across cases (Pearson's r = 0.515-0.656). Deficits were greatest in prescription generation, prescription analysis, and symptom-guided modification. In judge stress testing on 100 independent cases, perturbation detection rates across the three relations were 57%, 56%, and 31%, with contradictions detected more reliably than omissions. Separating component quality from cross-block consistency localizes failures missed by endpoint and completeness metrics and identifies where clinician oversight remains necessary.

Blinded physician evaluation has been considered by many to be the gold standard for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs). This is difficult to scale; thus, prior studies typically rely on small physician panels, often from a single institution or specialty, which both limits the scientific questions investigated and makes it unclear whether findings would be reproduced with a different set of evaluators. To more rigorously and scalably study clinical reasoning in AI models, here we introduce PrecepTron, an LLM fine-tuned for physician-level evaluation of open-ended responses. PrecepTron was trained using low-rank adaptation (LoRA) of a 32-billion-parameter model on a small number of physician examples. We also release GRAND-ROUNDS, a new large-scale physician-annotated benchmark of 9,217 scored responses from 160 clinicians across seven studies. We show that frontier LLMs in typical "LLM-as-a-judge" approaches often disagree with physicians and with each other, but fine-tuning PrecepTron on a small number of cases enables physician-level consistent scoring across tasks. We use PrecepTron to reproduce headline findings from five influential studies assessing LLMs for clinical care in JAMA, Science, and Nature Medicine without new human grading. Using PrecepTron, we then pose new questions about how LLMs reason in medicine that would have been infeasible with human grading alone, including measuring the diagnostic accuracy of frontier LLMs when clinical cases are provided piecemeal, even token by token. Together, PrecepTron and GRAND-ROUNDS provide a foundation for reproducible, large-scale study of how LLMs reason in medicine. All code, data, and labels are made freely available for researchers.