Right Diagnoses, Decorative Reasoning:A Perturbation Audit of Medical Chain-of-Thought

Chain-of-thought (CoT) distillation trains a smaller model to imitate a teacher's reasoning trace, but it is typically evaluated by final-answer metrics including accuracy. We ask whether gains in answer quality are accompanied by improvements in the trace. In medical QA, where short answer options can leave a richer clinical justification under-specified, a Qwen3-8B student distilled from a DeepSeek-V3-family teacher improves on MedQA-USMLE answer metrics (SC@64 74.7% to 84.4%; expected calibration error (ECE) 0.096 to 0.034). Yet under a Kimi-K2.6 style-blind LLM-judge audit, its error rate over non-abstained steps rises from 30.6% to 50.3%. In this primary medical setting, answer quality and trace factuality move in opposite directions. This before--after pattern persists across evaluators, teacher strengths, student scales and families, medical benchmarks, and style, segmentation, and answer-correctness controls. A 150-step blinded audit by a clinical expert reproduces the same ordering. Boundary checks narrow the scope of the claim: the risk appears when a compact answer under-constrains the rationale and a capable student can imitate expert-like form without reliably grounding each local claim. Standard answer metrics and aggregate hedging rates do not reveal the shift. When such traces are released or reused, answer-level metrics alone are insufficient.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have enabled interpretable medical diagnosis by integrating visual perception with linguistic reasoning. Yet, existing medical chain-of-thought (CoT) models lack explicit mechanisms to represent and enforce causal reasoning, leaving them vulnerable to spurious correlations and limiting their clinical reliability. We pinpoint three core challenges in medical CoT reasoning: how to adaptively trigger causal correction, construct high-quality causal-spurious contrastive samples, and maintain causal consistency across reasoning trajectories. To address these challenges, we propose MedCausalX, an end-to-end framework explicitly models causal reasoning chains in medical VLMs. We first introduce the CRMed dataset providing fine-grained anatomical annotations, structured causal reasoning chains, and counterfactual variants that guide the learning of causal relationships beyond superficial correlations. Building upon CRMed, MedCausalX employs a two-stage adaptive reflection architecture equipped with $\langle$causal$\rangle$ and $\langle$verify$\rangle$ tokens, enabling the model to autonomously determine when and how to perform causal analysis and verification. Finally, a trajectory-level causal correction objective optimized through error-attributed reinforcement learning refines the reasoning chain, allowing the model to distinguish genuine causal dependencies from shortcut associations. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks show that MedCausalX consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, improving diagnostic consistency by +5.4 points, reducing hallucination by over 10 points, and attaining top spatial grounding IoU, thereby setting a new standard for causally grounded medical reasoning. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/zhcz328/MedCausalX.

Objective: To improve the efficiency of medical question answering (MedQA) with large language models (LLMs) by avoiding unnecessary reasoning while maintaining accuracy. Methods: We propose Selective Chain-of-Thought (Selective CoT), an inference-time strategy that first predicts whether a question requires reasoning and generates a rationale only when needed. Two open-source LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen-2.5-7B) were evaluated on four biomedical QA benchmarks-HeadQA, MedQA-USMLE, MedMCQA, and PubMedQA. Metrics included accuracy, total generated tokens, and inference time. Results: Selective CoT reduced inference time by 13-45% and token usage by 8-47% with minimal accuracy loss ($\leq$4%). In some model-task pairs, it achieved both higher accuracy and greater efficiency than standard CoT. Compared with fixed-length CoT, Selective CoT reached similar or superior accuracy at substantially lower computational cost. Discussion: Selective CoT dynamically balances reasoning depth and efficiency by invoking explicit reasoning only when beneficial, reducing redundancy on recall-type questions while preserving interpretability. Conclusion: Selective CoT provides a simple, model-agnostic, and cost-effective approach for medical QA, aligning reasoning effort with question complexity to enhance real-world deployability of LLM-based clinical systems.