Active Evidence-Seeking and Diagnostic Reasoning in Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support D

AI benchmark · Biomedicine

Publisher
Paper Arxiv
Tier
D why
Snapshot

What is Active Evidence-Seeking and Diagnostic Reasoning in Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support?

Large language models perform well on static medical examinations, yet clinical diagnosis often requires iterative evidence gathering under uncertainty. Building on prior interactive evaluation efforts, we introduce an OSCE-inspired standardized patient simulator and a controlled, reproducible benchmark for active diagnostic inquiry. Across 468 cases and 15 models in our protocol, we observe that multi-turn evidence seeking reduces diagnostic accuracy by 12.75% and lowers supporting-evidence quality by 24.36% relative to full-context evaluation; error analyses associate these drops with premature diagnostic closure and inefficient questioning. Together, these results suggest that static full-context benchmarks may overestimate performance in interactive evidence-seeking settings, motivating complementary interactive assessment for safer clinical decision support.

Tier D

D

Long tail: little or no usage data yet.

How much stands behind a tier: usage, who backs it, a confirmed line from its own site or paper, and a clear read on X. High with three of the four, medium with two, low otherwise.

  • 15 models scored
  • no proper name (a paper title or description)
  • in curated RL directories (1 pt)
How we got to tier D
  1. Adoption: 15 models scored; no proper name (a paper title or description). Tier D.
  2. Not yet read on X.
  3. In curated RL directories: 1 point, a floor of none.
  4. Not yet confirmed by a line from its own site or paper.

A clear view on X moves a tier one step up or down; most entries don't move. How tiers work.

Not on the map yet: no line from its own site or paper places it in a domain.

Next: browse all benchmarks. Entry from the RL Research daily scrape of public sources, 2026-10-11 snapshot.