Abstract
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.
Explore similar work
Jun 30, 2026cs.CL
Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong results on many medical benchmarks, but their clinical reasoning remains difficult to evaluate reliably. A central risk is an evaluation illusion: fluent and well-structured explanations can appear clinically convincing even when the final diagnosis is incorrect. We introduce CLExEval, a human-in-the-loop framework for evaluating LLM clinical reasoning under progressive information masking. CLExEval combines 5,600 expert-physician annotations with 200 clinical reasoning traces derived from 40 rare diagnostic cases. Our analysis identifies three recurring failure patterns: (i) verbosity bias, where GPT-4o-mini's diagnostic accuracy drops from 95.0% to 32.5% under information scarcity; (ii) a hidden knowledge paradox, where a specialist model reaches 92.5% maximum diagnostic potential but fails to retrieve that knowledge reliably in verbose contexts; and (iii) a 68.6% reasoning-to-output mismatch, where correct diagnoses appear in reasoning traces but are not reflected in final answers. We further evaluate the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm on a human-verified failure set (n = 142). GPT-4o-mini approved 47.9% of clinically incorrect outputs, while HuatuoGPT-o1 approved all validly scored failures and showed a positive self-preference bias. These results suggest that standalone automated clinical evaluations can substantially overestimate clinical reliability without expert-grounded validation.
Ajmal M., Abin Roy, Afthab Salam Kanniyan +4
May 18, 2026cs.CL
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for clinical decision support, yet most evaluations are conducted in English, leaving their reliability in other languages uncertain. Here we evaluate the impact of prompting language on diagnostic reasoning and final diagnosis accuracy by comparing English and French performance across five LLMs (o3, DeepSeek-R1, GPT-4-Turbo, Llama-3.1-405B-Instruct, and BioMistral-7B). A total of 180 clinical vignettes covering 16 medical specialties were assessed by two physicians using an 18-point scale evaluating both diagnosis accuracy and reasoning quality. Four of the five models performed better in English (mean difference 0.37-0.91, adjusted p < 0.05), with the gap spanning multiple aspects of reasoning, including differential diagnosis, logical structure, and internal validity. o3 was the only model showing no overall language effect. These findings demonstrate that prompting language remains a critical determinant of LLM clinical performance, with implications for equitable linguistico-cultural deployment worldwide.
Adrien Bazoge, Josselin Corvellec, Sofiane Djillali Sid-Ahmed +1
Sep 21, 2026cs.AI
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.
Kalash Shah, Kunal Singh, Snehan J +1