The Illusion of Clinical Reasoning: A Benchmark Reveals the Pervasive Gap in Vision-Language Models for Clinical Competency

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.22275v1
• Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2025 03:33:22 GMT
• Title: The Illusion of Clinical Reasoning: A Benchmark Reveals the Pervasive Gap in Vision-Language Models for Clinical Competency
• Authors: Dingyu Wang, Zimu Yuan, Jiajun Liu, Shanggui Liu, Nan Zhou, Tianxing Xu, Di Huang, Dong Jiang,
• Abstract summary: Current benchmarks fail to capture the integrated, multimodal reasoning essential for real-world patient care.<n>This benchmark assesses models across 7 tasks that mirror the clinical reasoning pathway.<n>Current artificial intelligence models are not yet clinically competent for complex, multimodal reasoning.
• Score: 38.68458713626548
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Background: The rapid integration of foundation models into clinical practice and public health necessitates a rigorous evaluation of their true clinical reasoning capabilities beyond narrow examination success. Current benchmarks, typically based on medical licensing exams or curated vignettes, fail to capture the integrated, multimodal reasoning essential for real-world patient care. Methods: We developed the Bones and Joints (B&J) Benchmark, a comprehensive evaluation framework comprising 1,245 questions derived from real-world patient cases in orthopedics and sports medicine. This benchmark assesses models across 7 tasks that mirror the clinical reasoning pathway, including knowledge recall, text and image interpretation, diagnosis generation, treatment planning, and rationale provision. We evaluated eleven vision-language models (VLMs) and six large language models (LLMs), comparing their performance against expert-derived ground truth. Results: Our results demonstrate a pronounced performance gap between task types. While state-of-the-art models achieved high accuracy, exceeding 90%, on structured multiple-choice questions, their performance markedly declined on open-ended tasks requiring multimodal integration, with accuracy scarcely reaching 60%. VLMs demonstrated substantial limitations in interpreting medical images and frequently exhibited severe text-driven hallucinations, often ignoring contradictory visual evidence. Notably, models specifically fine-tuned for medical applications showed no consistent advantage over general-purpose counterparts. Conclusions: Current artificial intelligence models are not yet clinically competent for complex, multimodal reasoning. Their safe deployment should currently be limited to supportive, text-based roles. Future advancement in core clinical tasks awaits fundamental breakthroughs in multimodal integration and visual understanding.

Related papers

• 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)
• Med-RewardBench: Benchmarking Reward Models and Judges for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models [57.73472878679636]
  We introduce Med-RewardBench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate medical reward models and judges.<n>Med-RewardBench features a multimodal dataset spanning 13 organ systems and 8 clinical departments, with 1,026 expert-annotated cases.<n>A rigorous three-step process ensures high-quality evaluation data across six clinically critical dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:58:39Z)
• MedAtlas: Evaluating LLMs for Multi-Round, Multi-Task Medical Reasoning Across Diverse Imaging Modalities and Clinical Text [25.102399692530245]
  We introduce MedAtlas, a novel benchmark framework to evaluate large language models on realistic medical reasoning tasks.<n> MedAtlas is characterized by four key features: multi-turn dialogue, multi-modal medical image interaction, multi-task integration, and high clinical fidelity.<n>Each case is derived from real diagnostic and incorporates temporal interactions between textual medical histories and multiple imaging modalities, including CT, MRI, PET, ultrasound, and X-ray.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T17:32:17Z)
• How Far Have Medical Vision-Language Models Come? A Comprehensive Benchmarking Study [16.84832179579428]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) trained on web-scale corpora excel at natural image tasks and are increasingly repurposed for healthcare.<n>We present a comprehensive evaluation of open-source general-purpose and medically specialised VLMs, across eight benchmarks.<n>First, large general-purpose models already match or surpass medical-specific counterparts on several benchmarks, demonstrating strong zero-shot transfer from natural to medical images.<n>Second, reasoning performance is consistently lower than understanding, highlighting a critical barrier to safe decision support.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-15T11:12:39Z)
• Architecting Clinical Collaboration: Multi-Agent Reasoning Systems for Multimodal Medical VQA [1.2744523252873352]
  Dermatological care via telemedicine often lacks the rich context of in-person visits.<n>This study tested seven vision-language models on medical visual question answering across six configurations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T22:31:56Z)
• DrVD-Bench: Do Vision-Language Models Reason Like Human Doctors in Medical Image Diagnosis? [1.1094764204428438]
  We propose DrVD-Bench, the first benchmark for clinical visual reasoning.<n>DrVD-Bench consists of three modules: Visual Evidence, Reasoning Trajectory Assessment, and Report Generation Evaluation.<n>Our benchmark covers 20 task types, 17 diagnostic categories, and five imaging modalities-CT, MRI, ultrasound, radiography, and pathology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T03:33:25Z)
• EndoBench: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Multi-Modal Large Language Models for Endoscopy Analysis [62.00431604976949]
  EndoBench is the first comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to assess MLLMs across the full spectrum of endoscopic practice.<n>We benchmark 23 state-of-the-art models, including general-purpose, medical-specialized, and proprietary MLLMs.<n>Our experiments reveal: proprietary MLLMs outperform open-source and medical-specialized models overall, but still trail human experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T16:14:34Z)
• 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)

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.