MedCase-Structured: A Text-to-FHIR Dataset for Benchmarking Diagnostic Reasoning in Clinically Realistic EHR Settings

Clinical decision-making (CDM) is central to real-world clinical workflows, where clinicians infer diagnoses, select treatments, or anticipate future health outcomes under incomplete evidence. LLMs are increasingly used to support these decisions due to strong language capabilities, broad biomedical knowledge, and efficiency, yet the reliability of LLMs on real-world clinical decision tasks remains insufficiently understood. To evaluate CDM models, especially LLM-based models, an ideal and practical medical decision benchmark should be constructed via an automated yet reliable pipeline to ensure both scale and quality. Moreover, the grounding of a CDM benchmark in real patient EHRs can better support evaluation on practical CDM tasks that require substantive biomedical knowledge and clinical inference. To fill the gaps, we introduce EHRBench, an automated and reliable EHR-grounded benchmark for evaluating LLM-based clinical decision-making at scale. To ensure scalability and reliability, EHRBench is constructed through an EHR-LLM-KB(knowledge-base) interaction pipeline. For efficiency, we use a specialized LLM to automatically convert encounter-level EHR trajectories into structured templates and deterministically instantiate the templates into QA items. In parallel, we apply systematic KB-based verification and enrichment to filter hallucinated or ambiguous relations and to improve reliability. Using this pipeline, we construct nearly 1M (960,067) QA items spanning three core inference-required clinical decision tasks: diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. We benchmark more than 30 representative LLMs on EHRBench and provide detailed analyses of performance and robustness. The results show consistent capability trends across settings, further validating the reliability of EHRBench and highlighting actionable gaps toward clinically reliable LLM systems.

Modern large language models (LLMs) reach 60-70% diagnostic accuracy on complex clinical case benchmarks, but accuracy alone cannot distinguish stable clinically-grounded reasoning from pattern matching. We introduce clinical reasoning graphs, structured graph representations extracted from free-text LLM diagnostic traces using a domain-grounded ontology with 5 node types and 7 edge types. We apply this pipeline to 750 traces from five LLMs across 50 New England Journal of Medicine Clinicopathological Conference cases and three prompt conditions, and test whether diagnostic traces show stable structured reasoning patterns, or diagnostic schemas, for clinically similar cases. We operationalize this as higher graph similarity among clinically similar cases than among clinically dissimilar ones. Across 15 model-condition comparisons, within-cluster and between-cluster composite similarity are nearly equal, and no comparison survives multiple-testing correction; a component-level analysis finds any residual content signal far below schema scale. Graph similarity is also nearly identical for pairs of models that are both correct (0.488) and both incorrect (0.484), suggesting that graph structure captures a dimension not reflected in diagnostic accuracy. Structured reflection prompting increases explicit discriminating-feature analysis within traces (+33%) but does not increase cross-case consistency. These results show diagnostic competence without schema-scale reasoning consistency, and indicate that final-answer accuracy should be complemented by process-level evaluation. We release the ontology, extraction pipeline, validation protocol, and the extracted reasoning graphs and similarity artifacts as resources for structured evaluation of LLM clinical reasoning.

Hallucinations in medical large language models (LLMs) pose serious risks for clinical decision support, particularly when models must reason over complex electronic health records (EHRs). However, existing benchmarks often lack a realistic clinical context and provide limited insight into how hallucinations can be mitigated in practice. We introduce Med-HEAL, a framework for systematically identifying, analyzing, and mitigating hallucinations in medical LLMs using clinically grounded data. Building on the EHRNoteQA benchmark derived from MIMIC-IV discharge summaries, we construct a hallucination dataset by evaluating BioMistral-7B on open-ended clinical question answering tasks. Model outputs are labeled through a dual evaluation pipeline that combines LLM-as-a-Judge assessment (GPT-4o) with human auditing by medical student reviewers, producing correctness judgments and annotations of reasoning errors via a custom web-based evaluation system. We then leverage this dataset to investigate mitigation strategies: a self-critique pipeline, in which the test model reviews its own answers to detect potential errors and regenerates responses for flagged cases, and retrieval-augmented in-context learning (RA-ICL), which exposes the model to hallucinated and corrected examples. Experiments across five open-source LLMs-BioMistral, Llama-3.1, DeepSeek, Qwen2.5, and Qwen3, show that the self-critique strategy improves accuracy for three of five models (p < 0.05) without requiring parameter updates. Med-HEAL provides both a reusable hallucination dataset and a practical framework for studying and mitigating hallucinations in medical LLMs, supporting safer deployment of AI systems in clinical environments. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/yimingliao-blad/med-heal.git.