Auditing Evidence Use in Medical LLM Diagnosis

Most existing LLM diagnoses are evaluated on static, single-turn settings where complete patient information is provided upfront, an oversimplification of real clinical practice. We study active diagnosis: the real-life clinical process of starting from initial observation, ordering tests, interpreting results, and updating a differential diagnosis across multiple turns. Through systematic analysis, we identify three recurring failure modes in current LLMs: ungrounded test ordering, unreliable diagnostic update, and degraded multi-turn coherence. Together, these failures reveal a core deficit: existing medical training data teaches models to reason from complete information but not to act under evolving, partial evidence. To address this gap, we introduce MedAction, a tree-structured distillation pipeline that synthesizes diverse and high-quality multi-turn diagnostic trajectories via LLM-environment interaction. We propose two knowledge-graph-grounded metrics to filter trajectory quality: Disease Trajectory Consistency (DTC), which tracks whether the model's hypothesis converges toward the correct diagnosis, and Reasoning-Action Consistency (RAC), which verifies that belief updates are driven by gathered evidence. Using this pipeline, we construct MedAction-32K, a dataset of 32,681 trajectories from 2,896 PMC cases. Fine-tuning an 8B model on MedAction-32K achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source models on both MedR-Bench and our curated MedAction-300-Hard benchmark, pushing the edge for open-source medical LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in medical diagnosis, but real-world deployment remains challenging due to high-stakes clinical decisions and imperfect reasoning reliability. As a result, careful inspection of model behavior is essential for assessing whether diagnostic reasoning is reliable and clinically grounded. However, debugging medical LLMs remains difficult. First, developers often lack sufficient medical domain expertise to interpret model errors in clinically meaningful terms. Second, models can fail across a large and diverse set of instances involving different input types, tasks, and reasoning steps, making it challenging for developers to prioritize which errors deserve focused inspection. Third, developers struggle to identify recurring error patterns across cases, as existing debugging practices are largely instance-centric and rely on manual inspection of isolated failures. To address these challenges, we present VeriLLMed, a visual analytics system that integrates external biomedical knowledge to audit and debug medical LLM diagnostic reasoning. VeriLLMed transforms model outputs into comparable reasoning paths, constructs knowledge graph-grounded reference paths, and identifies three recurring classes of diagnosis errors: relation errors, branch errors, and missing errors. Case studies and expert evaluation demonstrate that VeriLLMed helps developers identify clinically implausible reasoning and generate actionable insights that can inform the improvement of medical LLMs.

Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators. Here, we evaluate an LLM Jury, composed of three frontier AI models, for scoring 3334 diagnoses on 300 real-world low- and middle-income country (LMIC) hospital cases. Both LLM- and clinician-generated diagnoses are scored against expert panel diagnoses across four dimensions: diagnosis, differential diagnosis, clinical reasoning, and negative treatment risk. The LLM Jury scores are compared with expert and independent re-scoring panel scores to assess error metrics, inter-rater agreement, severe-risk errors, and the effect of post hoc calibration using isotonic regression. In our data, we find that: (i) the uncalibrated LLM Jury scores preserve ordinal agreement with the expert clinician panel scores, but are systematically lower; (ii) the probability of severe-risk errors is lower for the LLM Jury than the human expert re-score panels; (iii) the LLM Jury combined with LLM diagnoses can be used to identify diagnoses at high risk of error, enabling targeted expert review and improved panel efficiency; (iv) the calibrated LLM Jury scores and rankings of diagnosing agents show excellent agreement with those of the primary expert panels; (v) LLM Jury models show no self-preference bias, they did not score diagnoses generated by their own underlying model or models from the same vendor more (or less) favourably than those generated by other models. Together, these results provide evidence that a calibrated LLM Jury is a trustworthy and reliable proxy for expert clinician evaluation in medical AI benchmarking. Confirming these findings in other clinical settings is an important direction for future work.