Didactic knowledge or Clinical Cases? How Data Types Shape Medical Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance on medical exam-style tasks, motivating growing interest in their deployment in real-world clinical settings. However, clinical decision-making is inherently safety-critical, context-dependent, and conducted under evolving evidence. In such situations, reliable LLM performance depends not on factual recall alone, but on robust medical reasoning. In this work, we present a comprehensive review of medical reasoning with LLMs. Grounded in cognitive theories of clinical reasoning, we conceptualize medical reasoning as an iterative process of abduction, deduction, and induction, and organize existing methods into seven major technical routes spanning training-based and training-free approaches. We further conduct a unified cross-benchmark evaluation of representative medical reasoning models under a consistent experimental setting, enabling a more systematic and comparable assessment of the empirical impact of existing methods. To better assess clinically grounded reasoning, we introduce MR-Bench, a benchmark derived from real-world hospital data. Evaluations on MR-Bench expose a pronounced gap between exam-level performance and accuracy on authentic clinical decision tasks. Overall, this survey provides a unified view of existing medical reasoning methods, benchmarks, and evaluation practices, and highlights key gaps between current model performance and the requirements of real-world clinical reasoning.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that domain-adapted large language models (LLMs) do not consistently outperform general-purpose counterparts on standard medical benchmarks, raising questions about the need for specialized clinical adaptation. METHODS: We systematically compare general and clinical LLMs on a diverse set of multiple choice clinical question answering tasks in English and Spanish. We introduce a perturbation based evaluation benchmark that probes model robustness, instruction following, and sensitivity to adversarial variations. Our evaluation includes, one-step and two-step question transformations, multi prompt testing and instruction guided assessment. We analyze a range of state-of-the-art clinical models and their general-purpose counterparts, focusing on Llama 3.1-based models. Additionally, we introduce Marmoka, a family of lightweight 8B-parameter clinical LLMs for English and Spanish, developed via continual domain-adaptive pretraining on medical corpora and instructions. RESULTS: The experiments show that clinical LLMs do not consistently outperform their general purpose counterparts on English clinical tasks, even under the proposed perturbation based benchmark. However, for the Spanish subsets the proposed Marmoka models obtain better results compared to Llama. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that, under current short-form MCQA benchmarks, clinical LLMs offer only marginal and unstable improvements over general-purpose models in English, suggesting that existing evaluation frameworks may be insufficient to capture genuine medical expertise. We further find that both general and clinical models exhibit substantial limitations in instruction following and strict output formatting. Finally, we demonstrate that robust medical LLMs can be successfully developed for low-resource languages such as Spanish, as evidenced by the Marmoka models.

Constantly evolving real-world knowledge necessitates models to be updated continuously. Especially in medicine, as clinical evidence changes over time, outdated knowledge can pose safety risks. Existing evaluations of knowledge integration focus on factual recall, offering limited insight into whether newly integrated knowledge is actually usable. Our benchmark MedKIT (Medical Knowledge Integration and Transfer) provides a granular evaluation of how models integrate and apply knowledge under realistic sequences of clinical updates. Each instance corresponds to a factual update derived from clinical evidence, paired with targeted probes that assess transfer across lexical variation, relational transformations, compositional reasoning, and open-ended operationalization, as well as locality tests for knowledge preservation. Using MedKIT, we conduct a large-scale empirical study of 12 knowledge integration strategies across 5 diverse models, including both general-purpose and medical LLMs. Our results reveal a consistent gap between recall and usable knowledge: while most methods achieve strong gains on the original update task and under lexical variation, relational generalization is limited, and no method yields meaningful improvements on compositional or operational tasks. These findings highlight a fundamental challenge in knowledge integration and position MedKIT as a testbed for developing methods that make newly integrated knowledge more consistently usable across tasks and contexts.