Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04691v2
• Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:28:31 GMT
• Title: Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases
• Authors: Pengcheng Qiu, Chaoyi Wu, Shuyu Liu, Weike Zhao, Zhuoxia Chen, Hongfei Gu, Chuanjin Peng, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, Weidi Xie,
• Abstract summary: We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
• Score: 48.87360916431396
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advancements in reasoning-enhanced large language models (LLMs), such as DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o3, have demonstrated significant progress. However, their application in professional medical contexts remains underexplored, particularly in evaluating the quality of their reasoning processes alongside final outputs. Here, we introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references derived from clinical case reports. Spanning 13 body systems and 10 specialties, it includes both common and rare diseases. To comprehensively evaluate LLM performance, we propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey. To assess reasoning quality, we present the Reasoning Evaluator, a novel automated system that objectively scores free-text reasoning responses based on efficiency, actuality, and completeness using dynamic cross-referencing and evidence checks. Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc. Our results show that current LLMs achieve over 85% accuracy in relatively simple diagnostic tasks when provided with sufficient examination results. However, performance declines in more complex tasks, such as examination recommendation and treatment planning. While reasoning outputs are generally reliable, with factuality scores exceeding 90%, critical reasoning steps are frequently missed. These findings underscore both the progress and limitations of clinical LLMs. Notably, open-source models like DeepSeek-R1 are narrowing the gap with proprietary systems, highlighting their potential to drive accessible and equitable advancements in healthcare.

Related papers

• ChestX-Reasoner: Advancing Radiology Foundation Models with Reasoning through Step-by-Step Verification [57.22053411719822]
  ChestX-Reasoner is a radiology diagnosis MLLM designed to leverage process supervision mined directly from clinical reports. Our two-stage training framework combines supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning guided by process rewards to better align model reasoning with clinical standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T16:48:23Z)
• Med-CoDE: Medical Critique based Disagreement Evaluation Framework [72.42301910238861]
  The reliability and accuracy of large language models (LLMs) in medical contexts remain critical concerns. Current evaluation methods often lack robustness and fail to provide a comprehensive assessment of LLM performance. We propose Med-CoDE, a specifically designed evaluation framework for medical LLMs to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T16:51:11Z)
• Medical Reasoning in LLMs: An In-Depth Analysis of DeepSeek R1 [0.0]
  This study assesses DeepSeek R1's medical reasoning against expert patterns using 100 MedQA clinical cases. The model achieved 93% diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating systematic clinical judgment through differential diagnosis, guideline-based treatment selection, and integration of patient-specific factors. Error analysis of seven incorrect cases revealed persistent limitations: anchoring bias, challenges reconciling conflicting data, insufficient exploration of alternatives, overthinking, knowledge gaps, and premature prioritization of definitive treatment over intermediate care.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:18:08Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• Evaluating Computational Accuracy of Large Language Models in Numerical Reasoning Tasks for Healthcare Applications [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as transformative tools in the healthcare sector.<n>Their proficiency in numerical reasoning, particularly in high-stakes domains like in clinical applications, remains underexplored.<n>This study investigates the computational accuracy of LLMs in numerical reasoning tasks within healthcare contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T04:29:43Z)
• Superhuman performance of a large language model on the reasoning tasks of a physician [10.043418251604624]
  Performance of large language models (LLMs) on medical tasks has traditionally been evaluated using multiple choice question benchmarks.<n>We evaluate OpenAI's o1-preview model, a model developed to increase run-time via chain of thought processes prior to generating a response.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-14T14:46:18Z)
• SemioLLM: Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Reasoning from Unstructured Clinical Narratives in Epilepsy [45.2233252981348]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to encode clinical knowledge. We present SemioLLM, an evaluation framework that benchmarks 6 state-of-the-art models. We show that most LLMs are able to accurately and confidently generate probabilistic predictions of seizure onset zones in the brain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T11:02:12Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Large Language Models in the Clinic: A Comprehensive Benchmark [63.21278434331952]
  We build a benchmark ClinicBench to better understand large language models (LLMs) in the clinic. We first collect eleven existing datasets covering diverse clinical language generation, understanding, and reasoning tasks. We then construct six novel datasets and clinical tasks that are complex but common in real-world practice. We conduct an extensive evaluation of twenty-two LLMs under both zero-shot and few-shot settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T15:51:06Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Does Biomedical Training Lead to Better Medical Performance? [2.3814275542331385]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are expected to significantly contribute to patient care, diagnostics, and administrative processes. This study investigates the effect of biomedical training in the context of six practical medical tasks evaluating $25$ models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-05T12:51:37Z)
• Evaluation of General Large Language Models in Contextually Assessing Semantic Concepts Extracted from Adult Critical Care Electronic Health Record Notes [17.648021186810663]
  The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in understanding and processing real-world clinical notes. The GPT family models have demonstrated considerable efficiency, evidenced by their cost-effectiveness and time-saving capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T16:52:37Z)
• Self-Verification Improves Few-Shot Clinical Information Extraction [73.6905567014859]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown the potential to accelerate clinical curation via few-shot in-context learning. They still struggle with issues regarding accuracy and interpretability, especially in mission-critical domains such as health. Here, we explore a general mitigation framework using self-verification, which leverages the LLM to provide provenance for its own extraction and check its own outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T22:05:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.