Cognitive bias in LLM reasoning compromises interpretation of clinical oncology notes

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.20680v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2025 21:13:09 GMT
• Title: Cognitive bias in LLM reasoning compromises interpretation of clinical oncology notes
• Abstract summary: We developed a hierarchical taxonomy of reasoning errors from GPT-4 chain-of-thought responses to real oncology notes.<n>We validated the taxonomy on 822 responses from prostate cancer consult notes spanning localized through metastatic disease.<n> Reasoning failures were associated with guideline-discordant and potentially harmful recommendations.
• Score: 28.87443673774825
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite high performance on clinical benchmarks, large language models may reach correct conclusions through faulty reasoning, a failure mode with safety implications for oncology decision support that is not captured by accuracy-based evaluation. In this two-cohort retrospective study, we developed a hierarchical taxonomy of reasoning errors from GPT-4 chain-of-thought responses to real oncology notes and tested its clinical relevance. Using breast and pancreatic cancer notes from the CORAL dataset, we annotated 600 reasoning traces to define a three-tier taxonomy mapping computational failures to cognitive bias frameworks. We validated the taxonomy on 822 responses from prostate cancer consult notes spanning localized through metastatic disease, simulating extraction, analysis, and clinical recommendation tasks. Reasoning errors occurred in 23 percent of interpretations and dominated overall errors, with confirmation bias and anchoring bias most common. Reasoning failures were associated with guideline-discordant and potentially harmful recommendations, particularly in advanced disease management. Automated evaluators using state-of-the-art language models detected error presence but could not reliably classify subtypes. These findings show that large language models may provide fluent but clinically unsafe recommendations when reasoning is flawed. The taxonomy provides a generalizable framework for evaluating and improving reasoning fidelity before clinical deployment.

Related papers

• CLExEval: A Human-in-the-Loop Framework for Qualitative Evaluation of LLM Clinical Reasoning [37.91882261875461]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong results on many medical benchmarks, but their clinical reasoning remains difficult to evaluate reliably.<n>We introduce CLExEval, a human-in-the-loop framework for evaluating LLM clinical reasoning under progressive information masking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T12:56:42Z)
• Beyond Scalar Scores: Exploring LLM-based Metrics for Clinical Significance Evaluation in Radiology Reports [49.5225801722164]
  Existing metrics obscure this requirement by reducing report quality to a medically ungrounded scalar.<n>We study this boundary using ReEvalMed benchmark as testbed and evaluate metric-level clinical significance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T08:10:30Z)
• Learning Diagnostic Reasoning for Decision Support in Toxicology [34.623049546258294]
  We present DeToxR, the first adaptation of Reinforcement Learning (RL) to emergency toxicology.<n>We design a robust data-fusion engine for multi-label prediction across 14 substance classes.<n>We optimize the model's reasoning directly using a clinical performance reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T11:26:45Z)
• Clinical Cognition Alignment for Gastrointestinal Diagnosis with Multimodal LLMs [63.535652574541764]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in medical image analysis.<n>Their application in gastrointestinal endoscopy is currently hindered by two critical limitations.<n>We propose a novel Clinical-Cognitive-Aligned (CogAlign) framework to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-21T07:47:37Z)
• Agentic Cognitive Profiling: Realigning Automated Alzheimer's Disease Detection with Clinical Construct Validity [66.94391219005291]
  This paper proposes Agentic Cognitive Profiling (ACP), an agentic framework that realigns automated screening with clinical protocol logic.<n>Central to our design is decoupling semantic understanding from measurement by delegating all quantification to deterministic function calling.<n>ACP achieves 90.5% score match rate in task examination and 85.3% accuracy in AD prediction, surpassing popular baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-18T06:15:35Z)
• Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification [60.18369393468405]
  Existing verifiers usually underperform owing to a lack of domain knowledge and limited calibration.<n>GLEAN compiles expert-curated protocols into trajectory-informed, well-calibrated correctness signals.<n>We empirically validate GLEAN with agentic clinical diagnosis across three diseases from the MIMIC-IV dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T09:36:43Z)
• How Well Do Multimodal Models Reason on ECG Signals? [36.281141199783825]
  We introduce a reproducible framework for evaluating reasoning in ECG signals.<n>We employ an agentic framework that generates code to empirically verify the temporal structures described in the reasoning trace.<n>This dual-verification method enables the scalable assessment of "true" reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T21:04:12Z)
• Suppressing Prior-Comparison Hallucinations in Radiology Report Generation via Semantically Decoupled Latent Steering [94.37535002230504]
  We develop a training-free, inference-time control framework termed Semantically Decoupled Latent Steering.<n>Our approach constructs a semantic-free intervention vector via large language model (LLM)-driven semantic decomposition.<n>We show that our approach significantly reduces the probability of historical hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T04:49:01Z)
• Investigating the Impact of Histopathological Foundation Models on Regressive Prediction of Homologous Recombination Deficiency [52.50039435394964]
  We systematically evaluate foundation models for regression-based tasks.<n>We extract patch-level features from whole slide images (WSI) using five state-of-the-art foundation models.<n>Models are trained to predict continuous HRD scores based on these extracted features across breast, endometrial, and lung cancer cohorts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T14:06:50Z)
• 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)
• A Multi-faceted Analysis of Cognitive Abilities: Evaluating Prompt Methods with Large Language Models on the CONSORT Checklist [1.1731001328350983]
  This study applies a behavioral and metacognitive analytic approach using an expert-validated dataset.<n>We analyze both cognitive adaptation and calibration error using metrics: Expected Error (ECE) and a baseline-normalized Relative Error (RCE)<n>Our results reveal pronounced miscalibration and overconfidence in both models, especially under clinical role-playing conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T00:15:02Z)
• Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.91760712805404]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T16:24:35Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models for Evidence-Based Clinical Question Answering [4.101088122511548]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated substantial progress in biomedical and clinical applications.<n>We curate a benchmark drawing from Cochrane systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.<n>We observe consistent performance patterns across sources and clinical domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-13T15:03:34Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• Secure Diagnostics: Adversarial Robustness Meets Clinical Interpretability [9.522045116604358]
  Deep neural networks for medical image classification often fail to generalize consistently in clinical practice.<n>This paper examines interpretability in deep neural networks fine-tuned for fracture detection by evaluating model performance against adversarial attack.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T20:26:02Z)
• Perplexity Trap: PLM-Based Retrievers Overrate Low Perplexity Documents [64.43980129731587]
  We propose a causal-inspired inference-time debiasing method called Causal Diagnosis and Correction (CDC)<n>CDC first diagnoses the bias effect of the perplexity and then separates the bias effect from the overall relevance score.<n> Experimental results across three domains demonstrate the superior debiasing effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T17:59:00Z)
• Pitfalls of topology-aware image segmentation [81.19923502845441]
  We identify critical pitfalls in model evaluation that include inadequate connectivity choices, overlooked topological artifacts, and inappropriate use of evaluation metrics.<n>We propose a set of actionable recommendations to establish fair and robust evaluation standards for topology-aware medical image segmentation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T08:11:42Z)
• 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.<n>We present SemioLLM, an evaluation framework that benchmarks 6 state-of-the-art models.<n>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)

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.