The article reviews existing tools for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models, identifying six key dimensions—problem representation, temporal synthesis, differential and management reasoning, counterfactual reasoning, calibrated uncertainty, and reasoning faithfulness. It finds that no single instrument covers all dimensions, with some aspects reasonably addressed while others, especially faithfulness and counterfactual reasoning, remain weakly evaluated. The authors propose combining current tools through binary rubric items, separate completeness and correctness scores, importance weighting, safety caps, temporal consistency checks, and chance‑corrected reliability reporting, and call for further design work on uncertainty, counterfactual reasoning, and faithfulness in longitudinal free‑text contexts.
By Zhangshu Joshua Jiang, Zina Ibrahim, James T. Teo
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...
By Zhangshu Joshua Jiang, Zina Ibrahim, James T. Teo
arXiv:2607. 02175v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multiple-choice medical benchmarks are increasingly saturated, and recent rubric-based evaluations such as HealthBench have shown that open-ended clinical performance is far from solved - its "Hard" subset top score remains 32%.
By Samiha A. Ismail, Fan X. Chen, Ali Merali
arXiv:2606. 17474v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for use in clinical consultation tasks, yet most medical evaluations remain static, single-turn, or narrowly outcome-based, limiting their ability to reflect the sequential, uncertain, and interactive nature of real-world care.
By Jiahui Niu, Huizi Yu, Wenkong Wang, Guangxin Dai, Jingxian He, Xiang Li, Zhiying Liang, Xinxin Lin, Kent CY So, Bryan YP Yan, Yun Kwok Wing, Yanqiu Xing, Xin Ma, Lizhou Fan
The paper introduces PrecepTron, a 32‑billion‑parameter language model fine‑tuned with low‑rank adaptation to evaluate clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) at a physician level. It also releases GRAND‑ROUNDS, a benchmark of 9,217 scored responses from 160 clinicians across seven studies. Using PrecepTron, the authors replicate key findings from major medical AI studies and explore new questions about LLM diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating that fine‑tuned models can provide consistent, scalable physician‑level scoring.
By Thomas A. Buckley, Zahir Kanjee, Peter G. Brodeur, Byron Crowe, Anthony M. Pettinato, Aashna P. Shah, Adrian D. Haimovich, Liam G. McCoy, Daniel Restrepo, Jason A. Freed, Ethan Goh, Jonathan H. Chen, Laura Zwaan, Katherine E. Goodman, Daniel J. Morgan, Raja-Elie E. Abdulnour, Adam Rodman, Arjun K. Manrai
arXiv:2604. 14892v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators.
By Amy Rouillard, Sitwala Mundia, Linda Camara, Ziyaad Dangor, Michael Cameron Gramanie, Ismail Kalla, Shabir A. Madhi, Kajal Morar, Marlvin T. Ncube, Haroon Saloojee, Bruce A. Bassett
arXiv:2509. 02594v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate high-quality, accurate, situationally aware answers to clinical questions requires going beyond conventional benchmarks to assess how these systems behave in complex, high-stakes clinical scenarios.
By Sandhanakrishnan Ravichandran, Shivesh Kumar, Rogerio Corga Da Silva, Miguel Romano, Reinhard Berkels, Michiel van der Heijden, Olivier Fail, Valentine Emmanuel Gnanapragasam
arXiv:2607. 08038v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Diagnostic error is a major threat to patient safety, yet current large language model (LLM) systems often treat diagnosis as a one-shot prediction task, lacking safeguards against missed high-risk alternatives or rigorous verification of their reasoning.
By Fan Ma, Mauro Giuffr\`e, Donald Wright, Kent McCann, Mark Iscoe, Lingfei Qian, Mingyang Jiang, Chi Wing Ng, Na Hong, Huan He, Cathy Shyr, Qingyu Chen, Lee Schwamm, Lucila Ohno-Machado, Hua Xu
The paper introduces the first benchmark for evaluating confidence estimation in large language models during multi‑turn medical consultations, combining three types of medical data and an information sufficiency gradient to capture how confidence and correctness evolve as evidence accumulates. Experiments with 27 methods reveal that token‑level and consistency‑level confidence approaches are limited by medical data, and that medical reasoning must be judged on both diagnostic accuracy and information completeness. Building on these findings, the authors propose MedConf, a retrieval‑augmented, linguistically grounded self‑assessment framework that aligns patient information with supporting, missing, and contradictory relations, producing interpretable confidence estimates that outperform existing methods across multiple datasets and LLMs.
By Zhiyao Ren, Yibing Zhan, Siyuan Liang, Guozheng Ma, Baosheng Yu, Dacheng Tao
arXiv:2607. 28677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM now pass medical licensing examinations and, in curated cases, can rival physicians at diagnostic reasoning.
By Shayndhan Sivanathan, Shravan Nageswaran, Mehdi Zadem, Ryaan Sultan, Nicolas von Mallinckrodt, Max Solovyev, Alexey Matyushkin, Sumon Sadhu, Gabriele C DeLuca, Sanjeeva Jeyaretna, James Hillis, Manoj Ramachandran, Prakash Jayakumar
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.
By Yakun Zhu, Zhongzhen Huang, Linjie Mu, Yutong Huang, Wei Nie, Jiaji Liu, Shaoting Zhang, Pengfei Liu, Xiaofan Zhang
The study introduces MedQADE, a German open‑response clinical benchmark with 3,800 question‑answer pairs and physician reference annotations. It evaluates large language models (LLMs) as judges, finding that while some LLMs (e.g., Gemini 3 Flash) achieve physician‑level agreement on correctness, they exhibit self‑bias and low abstention rates. Physicians showed moderate agreement on correctness but limited agreement on difficulty, and their abstention increased with perceived difficulty.
By William Philipp, Finn Fassbender, Daniel Fister, Thorsten Langer, Martje G. Pauly, Rebecca Herzog, Markus A. Hobert, Theresa Paulus, Alexander Baumann, Chi Wang Ip, Lukas L. Goede, Johanna Reimer, Sebastian L\"ons, Ronald B\"ock, Sebastian Fudickar