Large language models (LLMs) show promise for clinical reasoning and decision support, but evaluation in structured, electronic health record-congruent settings remains limited. Existing benchmarks often rely on static datasets or unstructured inputs that do not reflect the interoperable data formats used in clinical systems. We introduce a reusable pipeline for generating terminology-grounded HL7 FHIR R4 bundles from unstructured text, enabling controllable evaluation of clinical decision support systems over structured inputs. The pipeline combines staged LLM generation with terminology-grounded validation and repair to eliminate hallucinated codes and enforce structural and semantic consistency. Applying this approach to MedCaseReasoning, we construct MedCase-Structured, a synthetic dataset of 1,732 FHIR bundles derived from clinician-authored diagnostic cases, producing complete, valid bundles for 97.1% of attempted cases. Evaluation on MedCase-Structured reveals consistently lower diagnostic accuracy for LLMs on structured FHIR inputs than with plain text, highlighting the importance of deployment-aligned benchmarking.
Deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) in healthcare requires robust performance across two complementary dimensions - diagnostic reasoning: the convergent, evidence-driven task of inferring a patient's condition from clinical data to produce a diagnosis, and clinical healthcare reasoning: the broader, navigational judgment required to communicate, plan, and adapt across multi-turn clinical interactions where a single correct answer may not exist. Recent benchmarks such as HealthBench and MedXpertQA reveal persistent weaknesses in both areas, exposing failures in complex diagnostic scenarios and limitations in contextual, patient-centered dialogue. We introduce a sequential training framework that targets these facets using synthetic data and rubric-based reinforcement learning. First, we improve diagnostic reasoning using MedBullets-derived questions with rule- and rubric-guided Reinforcement Learning (RL). We then shift to clinical reasoning by generating 5.3k synthetic multi-turn scenarios, each paired with multi-dimensional rubrics to comprehensively assess the response. This approach yields over 10% improvement on MedXpertQA, and our 30B model achieves 50.1% accuracy on HealthBench-Hard, surpassing proprietary baselines including GPT-5 (thinking). Our results show that targeted synthetic datasets and rubric-based training can systematically improve both diagnostic and interactive clinical reasoning in medical LLMs.
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.