Information-seeking failures of large language models in agentic clinical reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.10275v1
• Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 12:10:33 GMT
• Title: Information-seeking failures of large language models in agentic clinical reasoning
• Abstract summary: Reasoning traces scored high on a clinical reasoning but decorrelated from accuracy, revealing a gap between locally coherent rationales and globally correct conclusions.<n>These findings demonstrate that the primary limitation of current models in clinical oncology is not insufficient medical knowledge but a systematic failure of information-seeking under uncertainty.
• Score: 1.0175801260973338
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models achieve high scores on medical knowledge assessments, yet clinical reasoning requires actively deciding what to investigate under uncertainty. We developed an agentic evaluation framework in hematologic oncology in which models must proactively request clinical data across three sequential rounds before committing to a diagnosis and treatment plan. Across 32 frontier models, the best achieved only 68% overall accuracy. Information utilization, the fraction of available data actually requested, was the strongest predictor of diagnostic accuracy (R = 0.69, P < 0.001), yet utilization collapsed from 57% to 26% in the final round, leaving molecular and cytogenetic data critical for treatment selection unexamined. Reasoning traces scored high on a clinical reasoning rubric (91% above threshold) but decorrelated from accuracy, revealing a gap between locally coherent rationales and globally correct conclusions. Error analysis identified search satisficing, anchoring and premature closure as the dominant failure modes, the same cognitive biases that characterize novice clinicians under dual-process models of diagnostic reasoning. These findings demonstrate that the primary limitation of current models in clinical oncology is not insufficient medical knowledge but a systematic failure of information-seeking under uncertainty.

Related papers

• Evaluating Multi-Turn Multimodal Diagnostic Reasoning on Challenging Real-World Clinical Cases [59.5328455571863]
  ClinMM-Bench is the largest multi-turn multimodal clinical diagnostic evaluation benchmark to date.<n>It contains 1,089 challenging real-world clinical cases and 3,760 medical images across eight specialties.<n> proprietary models achieved the highest overall diagnostic accuracy, but the proportion of completely correct diagnoses remained limited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T16:19:03Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Multi-turn Medical Diagnosis: Hold, Lure, and Self-Correction [72.89352076103889]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve high accuracy in medical diagnosis when all clinical information is provided in a single turn.<n>We introduce MINT, a high-fidelity, multi-turn medical diagnosis benchmark comprising 1,035 cases.<n>We uncover three persistent behavioral patterns that significantly impact diagnostic decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T00:23:10Z)
• Mind the Rarities: Can Rare Skin Diseases Be Reliably Diagnosed via Diagnostic Reasoning? [31.103598483020857]
  Large vision-language models (LVLMs) demonstrate strong performance in dermatology.<n> evaluating diagnostic reasoning for rare conditions remains largely unexplored.<n>Our dataset contains 26,030 multi-modal image-text pairs and 6,354 clinically challenging cases.<n> Benchmarking 22 leading LVLMs exposes significant deficiencies across diagnosis accuracy, differential diagnosis, and clinical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T02:25:36Z)
• 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)
• A Disease-Centric Vision-Language Foundation Model for Precision Oncology in Kidney Cancer [54.58205672910646]
  RenalCLIP is a visual-language foundation model for characterization, diagnosis and prognosis of renal mass.<n>It achieved better performance and superior generalizability across 10 core tasks spanning the full clinical workflow of kidney cancer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T17:48:19Z)
• An Agentic System for Rare Disease Diagnosis with Traceable Reasoning [69.46279475491164]
  We introduce DeepRare, the first rare disease diagnosis agentic system powered by a large language model (LLM)<n>DeepRare generates ranked diagnostic hypotheses for rare diseases, each accompanied by a transparent chain of reasoning.<n>The system demonstrates exceptional diagnostic performance among 2,919 diseases, achieving 100% accuracy for 1013 diseases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T13:42:26Z)
• MedCaseReasoning: Evaluating and learning diagnostic reasoning from clinical case reports [49.00805568780791]
  We introduce MedCaseReasoning, the first open-access dataset for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on their ability to align with clinician-authored diagnostic reasoning.<n>The dataset includes 14,489 diagnostic question-and-answer cases, each paired with detailed reasoning statements.<n>We evaluate state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs on MedCaseReasoning and find significant shortcomings in their diagnoses and reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T22:34:36Z)
• 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.<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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:18:08Z)
• 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)

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.