Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10278v1
• Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 16:24:35 GMT
• Title: Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models
• Authors: Christopher Chiu, Silviu Pitis, Mihaela van der Schaar,
• Abstract summary: We introduce VivaBench, a benchmark for evaluating sequential clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our dataset consists of 1762 physician-curated clinical vignettes structured as interactive scenarios that simulate a (oral) examination in medical training.<n>Our analysis identified several failure modes that mirror common cognitive errors in clinical practice.
• Score: 51.91760712805404
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Clinical reasoning in medicine is a hypothesis-driven process where physicians refine diagnoses from limited information through targeted history, physical examination, and diagnostic investigations. In contrast, current medical benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) primarily assess knowledge recall through single-turn questions, where complete clinical information is provided upfront. To address this gap, we introduce VivaBench, a multi-turn benchmark that evaluates sequential clinical reasoning in LLM agents. Our dataset consists of 1762 physician-curated clinical vignettes structured as interactive scenarios that simulate a (oral) examination in medical training, requiring agents to actively probe for relevant findings, select appropriate investigations, and synthesize information across multiple steps to reach a diagnosis. While current LLMs demonstrate competence in diagnosing conditions from well-described clinical presentations, their performance degrades significantly when required to navigate iterative diagnostic reasoning under uncertainty in our evaluation. Our analysis identified several failure modes that mirror common cognitive errors in clinical practice, including: (1) fixation on initial hypotheses, (2) inappropriate investigation ordering, (3) premature diagnostic closure, and (4) failing to screen for critical conditions. These patterns reveal fundamental limitations in how current LLMs reason and make decisions under uncertainty. Through VivaBench, we provide a standardized benchmark for evaluating conversational medical AI systems for real-world clinical decision support. Beyond medical applications, we contribute to the larger corpus of research on agentic AI by demonstrating how sequential reasoning trajectories can diverge in complex decision-making environments.

Related papers

• MedClarify: An information-seeking AI agent for medical diagnosis with case-specific follow-up questions [26.936554184582096]
  We introduce MedClarify, an AI agent for information-seeking that can generate follow-up questions for iterative reasoning.<n>Specifically, MedClarify computes a list of candidate diagnoses analogous to a differential diagnosis, and then proactively generates follow-up questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T12:19:12Z)
• Thinking Like a Doctor: Conversational Diagnosis through the Exploration of Diagnostic Knowledge Graphs [12.612647781309098]
  We propose a conversational diagnosis system that explores a diagnostic knowledge graph to reason in two steps.<n>We use a realistic patient simulator that responds to the system's questions.<n>Experiments show improved diagnostic accuracy and efficiency over strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T11:56:36Z)
• AgentsEval: Clinically Faithful Evaluation of Medical Imaging Reports via Multi-Agent Reasoning [73.50200033931148]
  We introduce AgentsEval, a multi-agent stream reasoning framework that emulates the collaborative diagnostic workflow of radiologists.<n>By dividing the evaluation process into interpretable steps including criteria definition, evidence extraction, alignment, and consistency scoring, AgentsEval provides explicit reasoning traces and structured clinical feedback.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that AgentsEval delivers clinically aligned, semantically faithful, and interpretable evaluations that remain robust under paraphrastic, semantic, and stylistic perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:59:13Z)
• ClinDEF: A Dynamic Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models in Clinical Reasoning [58.01333341218153]
  We propose ClinDEF, a dynamic framework for assessing clinical reasoning in LLMs through simulated diagnostic dialogues.<n>Our method generates patient cases and facilitates multi-turn interactions between an LLM-based doctor and an automated patient agent.<n>Experiments show that ClinDEF effectively exposes critical clinical reasoning gaps in state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T12:58:58Z)
• Timely Clinical Diagnosis through Active Test Selection [49.091903570068155]
  We propose ACTMED (Adaptive Clinical Test selection via Model-based Experimental Design) to better emulate real-world diagnostic reasoning.<n>LLMs act as flexible simulators, generating plausible patient state distributions and supporting belief updates without requiring structured, task-specific training data.<n>We evaluate ACTMED on real-world datasets and show it can optimize test selection to improve diagnostic accuracy, interpretability, and resource use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T18:10:45Z)
• Language Agents for Hypothesis-driven Clinical Decision Making with Reinforcement Learning [38.49879425944787]
  We propose to model clinical decision-making for diagnosis with a hypothesis-driven uncertainty-aware language agent, LA-CDM.<n>We train LA-CDM with three objectives targeting critical aspects of clinical decision-making: accurate hypothesis generation, hypothesis uncertainty estimation, and efficient decision-making.<n>We evaluate our methodology on MIMIC-CDM, a real-world dataset covering four abdominal diseases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T13:32:01Z)
• ER-REASON: A Benchmark Dataset for LLM-Based Clinical Reasoning in the Emergency Room [6.910389029249664]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been extensively evaluated on medical question answering tasks based on licensing exams.<n> ER-Reason is a benchmark designed to evaluate LLM-based clinical reasoning and decision-making in the emergency room.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T22:43:44Z)
• 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)
• CliMedBench: A Large-Scale Chinese Benchmark for Evaluating Medical Large Language Models in Clinical Scenarios [50.032101237019205]
  CliMedBench is a comprehensive benchmark with 14 expert-guided core clinical scenarios. The reliability of this benchmark has been confirmed in several ways.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:15:36Z)
• AI Hospital: Benchmarking Large Language Models in a Multi-agent Medical Interaction Simulator [69.51568871044454]
  We introduce textbfAI Hospital, a framework simulating dynamic medical interactions between emphDoctor as player and NPCs. This setup allows for realistic assessments of LLMs in clinical scenarios. We develop the Multi-View Medical Evaluation benchmark, utilizing high-quality Chinese medical records and NPCs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T06:46:48Z)
• Large Language Models are Clinical Reasoners: Reasoning-Aware Diagnosis Framework with Prompt-Generated Rationales [15.362903610463285]
  We present a "reasoning-aware" diagnosis framework that rationalizes the diagnostic process via prompt-based learning. We propose a novel set of criteria for evaluating machine-generated rationales' potential for real-world clinical settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T16:14:45Z)

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.