DocTalk: Enhancing Medical Knowledge Retrieval via Fine-tuned Large Language Models with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Robust Clinical Decision Support

Patient-facing medical question answering with large language models (LLMs) is moving from research demonstrations to production deployments, yet evaluation remains anchored on factual correctness. Factuality is necessary but not sufficient: a response can be factually grounded and still issue a directive that, if acted on, would harm the patient. We introduce a risk-sensitive evaluation framework that scores responses by the presence and severity of six categories of risk-bearing language (treatment directives, contraindications, dosage expressions, urgency-triage cues, high-alert medication mentions, and overconfident assertions), anchored on published clinical harm taxonomies. Severity is classified by a three-judge LLM ensemble. We apply this framework to six 7-9B instruction-tuned models, three general (Mistral-7B, Phi-3.5-mini, Llama-3.1-8B) and three medically adapted (BioMistral-7B, OpenBioLLM-Llama3-8B, Med42-Llama3-8B), on 200 real patient questions from the K-QA benchmark. Two findings emerge. First, ensemble risk-bearing language is statistically independent of factual hallucination rate (pooled Spearman $ρ= -0.065$, $n = 300$, 95% CI $[-0.18, +0.05]$; distance correlation $= 0.10$, independence test $p = 0.24$). Second, medical fine-tuning does not reduce aggregate risk but reshapes it: continued-pretraining adaptations (BioMistral, OpenBioLLM) consistently suppress high-alert medication mentions while amplifying overconfident assertions, whereas clinical instruction-tuning (Med42) suppresses dosing only, without amplifying overconfidence. Per-category Krippendorff $α$ is fair to good for the four linguistically anchored categories (0.53-0.71) and low for the two clinical-judgment-dependent categories (0.19, 0.31), indicating where automatic safety evaluation is and is not yet reliable. We release the rubric, judge prompts, and evaluation code.

Large Language Models (LLMs) with reasoning capabilities have recently demonstrated strong potential in medical Question Answering (QA). Existing approaches are largely English-focused and primarily rely on distillation from general-purpose LLMs, raising concerns about the reliability of their medical knowledge. In this work, we present a method to generate multilingual reasoning traces based on medical knowledge extracted from Wikipedia. We produce 500k traces in English, Italian, and Spanish, using a retrieval-augmented generation approach over medical information from Wikipedia. The traces are generated to solve medical questions drawn from MedQA and MedMCQA, which we extend to Italian and Spanish. We test our pipeline in both in-domain and out-of-domain settings across Medical QA benchmarks, and demonstrate that our reasoning traces improve performance both when utilized via in-context learning (few-shot) and supervised fine-tuning, yielding state-of-the-art results among 8B-parameter LLMs. We believe that these resources can support the development of more transparent clinical decision-support tools in multilingual settings. We release the full suite of resources: reasoning traces, translated QA datasets, Medical-Wikipedia, and fine-tuned models.

Medical large language models are often judged by how many clinical questions they answer correctly. That view is useful, but it misses a practical risk. A model may know the right answer and still change its response when the same case is written in a different patient voice. This paper evaluates that risk as SDoH aware narrative anchoring bias. We use NarrativeShield SDoH MedQA, a counterfactual medical question answering dataset in which each case appears in persona based narratives while the answer key remains fixed. The dataset is reshaped from wide format into case grouped persona rows. We evaluate three open source instruction tuned LLMs from the Qwen2.5 family: 1.5B, 3B, and 7B. The final experiment uses 300 clinical cases and produces 8,100 model responses across three prompting conditions. We report persona level accuracy, counterfactual consistency, correct consistency, and narrative sensitivity error. Qwen2.5 7B achieves the best accuracy at 56.33 percent and the best correct consistency at 40.33 percent. Paired McNemar exact tests show significant accuracy gains for 7B over 3B in all prompt settings. Even so, narrative sensitivity remains, with the lowest error still at 31.67 percent. These results suggest that trustworthy clinical decision support should be evaluated by both average correctness and stability across medically equivalent patient narratives.