arXiv:2607. 19201v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Clinical NLP evaluation remains dominated by multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which scores only final-answer accuracy and cannot detect when a model reaches the correct diagnosis while grounding it in irrelevant, absent, or contradictory evidence.
arXiv:2606. 15735v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Discharge summaries are crucial clinical documents containing the context of a patient's overall hospital stay, and are routinely reviewed by medical experts for patient readmission, ongoing care, and diagnostic decision-making.
arXiv:2607. 19678v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-generated answers in high-stakes domains are often fluent but difficult to verify, especially when they contain multi-step reasoning rather than a single final answer.
The paper introduces a method for generating multilingual reasoning traces for medical question answering using large language models. It creates 500,000 reasoning traces in English, Italian, and Spanish by retrieving medical information from Wikipedia and applies them to MedQA and MedMCQA datasets extended into Italian and Spanish. The approach improves performance in both few‑shot in‑context learning and supervised fine‑tuning, achieving state‑of‑the‑art results for 8B‑parameter LLMs and releasing all resources for further research.
arXiv:2505. 14107v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The emergence of groundbreaking large language models capable of performing complex reasoning tasks holds significant promise for addressing various scientific challenges, including those arising in complex clinical scenarios.
The UIC-AIHealth4All system was presented for the ArchEHR-QA 2026 shared task on grounded question answering from electronic health records. It participated in evidence identification, answer generation, and answer‑evidence alignment, using an answer‑first pipeline that generates candidate answers with cited note sentences before classifying the full evidence set. The system ranked third in evidence identification, ninth in answer generation, and fifth in answer‑evidence alignment, and a linguistic analysis showed its outputs were harder to read than clinician‑authored references, highlighting the need for readability optimization in clinical NLP.
arXiv:2609.37788v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Rubrics support the structured evaluation of language models. We propose a rubric for assessing expressed clinical reasoning in model responses, draw...
arXiv:2610.01938v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Exam-style accuracy does not establish whether large language models (LLMs) reason well over clinical records. We define clinical reasoning as integr...
arXiv:2608.22622v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Clinical decision-making relies on identifying relevant patient information to guide diagnosis and treatment, a challenge that is especially difficul...
arXiv:2607. 02983v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent reasoning-centric Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant strides, yet they predominantly operate on a passive-inference pattern that assumes complete information.
arXiv:2608.21948v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Complex clinical reasoning requires models to update diagnostic hypotheses as new evidence emerges and to coordinate different medical specialities und...
arXiv:2609.12822v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Blinded physician evaluation has been considered by many to be the gold standard for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)....
arXiv:2603. 03292v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit high reasoning capacity in medical question-answering, but their tendency to produce hallucinations and outdated knowledge poses critical risks in healthcare fields.