Medical diagnosis is not a single prediction from a fully specified vignette. It is a sequential workup: clinicians decide what evidence to obtain, revise a differential diagnosis, and stop when the diagnosis is sufficiently supported. Most medical AI benchmarks instead reveal the relevant context upfront and score only the final answer, making unsupported correct guesses, premature closure, inefficient workups, and poor uncertainty updating invisible. We introduce DDX-TRACE, a physician-adjudicated benchmark for multimodal neuroradiology that evaluates diagnostic trajectories under hidden evidence over 211 challenging cases. Each case begins with limited clinical history; models request imaging studies in free form, receive matched image bundles when available, update a probabilistic differential diagnosis after each turn, and stop with a localized final diagnosis. Evaluating state-of-the-art VLMs, we find that final diagnosis scores can substantially misrepresent workup quality: models may guess plausible diagnoses without essential evidence, request useful studies but misinterpret raw images, or acquire evidence inefficiently while updating uncertainty poorly. Controlled evidence variants isolate bottlenecks in planning, visual evidence extraction, and downstream differential reasoning. DDX-TRACE shifts medical AI evaluation from final answers to evidence-supported diagnostic trajectories.
Medical LLMs are often evaluated by whether they select the correct diagnosis, but diagnostic accuracy alone does not show whether the model used the case evidence appropriately. We present a behavioral audit of evidence use in medical diagnosis. For each case, we decompose patient information into evidence units, score candidate diagnoses under controlled evidence subsets, and mine low-order interactions in diagnostic margins. Because medical evidence is diagnosis-relative, the audit separates interaction discovery from failure assignment: large or negative interactions can reflect plausible differential diagnosis, while suspicious interactions require robustness checks and clinical review. We evaluate five open-weight LLMs on DDXPlus, CupCase, and MedCase. Across datasets, faithful support and differential conflict or cancellation account for most interaction strength, showing that many evidence interactions are clinically plausible rather than failures. In a DDXPlus-focused blinded five-reviewer 130-item enriched review sample, invalid or shortcut-like cases concentrate in negated or absent findings and clinically local evidence. These results show that accuracy can hide candidate evidence-use failures and motivate role-aware audits for medical LLM evaluation.
Multimodal clinical decision-making requires reliable reasoning over heterogeneous evidence from electronic health records, medical images, and physiological signals. Existing models typically map these inputs directly to diagnoses without explicitly assessing evidence sufficiency, tool-use requirements, or diagnostic uncertainty. This paper presents MedTRACE, a tool-augmented multimodal clinical reasoning agent for evidence-grounded decision-making. MedTRACE uses modality-specific encoders to construct a unified patient-state representation and performs an iterative loop of hypothesis formation, toolaware deliberation, and evidence verification. It dynamically invokes visual grounding, evidence retrieval, and structured parsing tools to locate diagnosis-relevant regions, retrieve clinical knowledge and similar cases, and extract structured findings. The acquired evidence enters an evidence memory, where a consistency verifier confirms or revises the current hypothesis. MedTRACE outputs a diagnosis together with supporting evidence, an auditable reasoning trace, and calibrated confidence. Experiments on multiple multimodal clinical diagnosis benchmarks show that MedTRACE improves diagnostic accuracy by 5.4% and AUROC by 4.7 percentage points over the strongest baseline. It also improves evidenceselection F1 by 8.2 percentage points and visual-grounding IoU by 6.5 percentage points, reduces expected calibration error by 31.6%, and decreases unsupported diagnostic errors by 27.8%. These results demonstrate that active evidence acquisition and verification improve the accuracy, interpretability, and reliability of multimodal clinical decisionmaking.
Vision-language models have demonstrated impressive capabilities in general medical visual question answering, yet due to limited interpretability, it remains unclear whether their predictions reflect evidence-grounded clinical reasoning or reliance on spurious priors. We introduce Med-R2 Bench, a hierarchical benchmark aligned with the clinical workflow to evaluate adversarial robustness with visual grounding. We design stepwise QA tasks to assess whether reasoning chains are strictly grounded in visual evidence across the four clinical stages, and employ adversarial perturbations to test robustness against misleading cues. Med-R2 comprises 42,432 images, 31 task categories, and 110,406 QA pairs. Evaluation across 14 VLMs reveals a sequential performance degradation along the four-stage clinical workflow. Adversarial experiments show that models rely heavily on correct prompts to guess answers. Even when provided with explicit visual cues, the models struggle to accurately align textual descriptions. Finally, we demonstrate stepwise fine-tuning using our hierarchical data significantly improves reasoning robustness, highlighting its potential to drive future improvements in evidence-based medical AI.