Medical Reasoning in LLMs: An In-Depth Analysis of DeepSeek R1

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00016v1
• Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:18:08 GMT
• Title: Medical Reasoning in LLMs: An In-Depth Analysis of DeepSeek R1
• Authors: Birger Moell, Fredrik Sand Aronsson, Sanian Akbar,
• Abstract summary: This study assesses DeepSeek R1's medical reasoning against expert patterns using 100 MedQA clinical cases.<n>The model achieved 93% diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating systematic clinical judgment through differential diagnosis, guideline-based treatment selection, and integration of patient-specific factors.<n>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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Integrating large language models (LLMs) like DeepSeek R1 into healthcare requires rigorous evaluation of their reasoning alignment with clinical expertise. 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. However, 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. Crucially, reasoning length correlated with accuracy - shorter responses (<5,000 characters) were more reliable, suggesting extended explanations may signal uncertainty or rationalization of errors. While DeepSeek R1 exhibits foundational clinical reasoning capabilities, recurring flaws highlight critical areas for refinement, including bias mitigation, knowledge updates, and structured reasoning frameworks. These findings underscore LLMs' potential to augment medical decision-making through artificial reasoning but emphasize the need for domain-specific validation, interpretability safeguards, and confidence metrics (e.g., response length thresholds) to ensure reliability in real-world applications.

Related papers

• Explainability of AI Uncertainty: Application to Multiple Sclerosis Lesion Segmentation on MRI [30.086986374579414]
  This study introduces a novel framework to explain the potential sources of predictive uncertainty. The proposed analysis shifts the focus from the uncertainty-error relationship towards relevant medical and engineering factors. Our findings reveal that instance-wise uncertainty is strongly related to lesion size, shape, and cortical involvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T08:09:27Z)
• Benchmarking Chinese Medical LLMs: A Medbench-based Analysis of Performance Gaps and Hierarchical Optimization Strategies [11.0505830548286]
  This study introduces a granular error taxonomy through systematic analysis of top 10 models on MedBench.<n> Evaluation of 10 leading models reveals vulnerabilities, despite achieving 0.86 accuracy in medical knowledge recall.<n>Our analysis uncovers systemic weaknesses in knowledge boundary enforcement and multi-step reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T13:28:25Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• 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)
• Uncertainty-aware abstention in medical diagnosis based on medical texts [87.88110503208016]
  This study addresses the critical issue of reliability for AI-assisted medical diagnosis. We focus on the selection prediction approach that allows the diagnosis system to abstain from providing the decision if it is not confident in the diagnosis. We introduce HUQ-2, a new state-of-the-art method for enhancing reliability in selective prediction tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T10:15:21Z)
• MedCoT: Medical Chain of Thought via Hierarchical Expert [48.91966620985221]
  This paper presents MedCoT, a novel hierarchical expert verification reasoning chain method.<n>It is designed to enhance interpretability and accuracy in biomedical imaging inquiries.<n> Experimental evaluations on four standard Med-VQA datasets demonstrate that MedCoT surpasses existing state-of-the-art approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T11:14:02Z)
• Reasoning-Enhanced Healthcare Predictions with Knowledge Graph Community Retrieval [61.70489848327436]
  KARE is a novel framework that integrates knowledge graph (KG) community-level retrieval with large language models (LLMs) reasoning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that KARE outperforms leading models by up to 10.8-15.0% on MIMIC-III and 12.6-12.7% on MIMIC-IV for mortality and readmission predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T18:46:28Z)
• Towards Reducing Diagnostic Errors with Interpretable Risk Prediction [18.474645862061426]
  We propose a method to use LLMs to identify pieces of evidence in patient EHR data that indicate increased or decreased risk of specific diagnoses. Our ultimate aim is to increase access to evidence and reduce diagnostic errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T17:05:48Z)
• Enhancing Diagnostic Accuracy through Multi-Agent Conversations: Using Large Language Models to Mitigate Cognitive Bias [5.421033429862095]
  Cognitive biases in clinical decision-making significantly contribute to errors in diagnosis and suboptimal patient outcomes. This study explores the role of large language models in mitigating these biases through the utilization of a multi-agent framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T01:35:50Z)
• Towards Reliable Medical Image Segmentation by utilizing Evidential Calibrated Uncertainty [52.03490691733464]
  We introduce DEviS, an easily implementable foundational model that seamlessly integrates into various medical image segmentation networks. By leveraging subjective logic theory, we explicitly model probability and uncertainty for the problem of medical image segmentation. DeviS incorporates an uncertainty-aware filtering module, which utilizes the metric of uncertainty-calibrated error to filter reliable data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-01T05:02:46Z)

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.