ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Automating expert-level medical reasoning evaluation of large language models.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Nationwide Multicentre Evaluation of Guideline-Grounded Large Language Model Chatbots to Support Patient Self-Management and Education in Rheumatology.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Guideline-augmented prompting improves comparative preference and response consistency of large language model outputs for orthopaedic anaesthesia questions: A controlled prompting study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Validating LLM judges for automated oversight of patient communication.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- The IMPACT framework for evaluating generative AI in critical care: development and multinational consensus validation.Annals of intensive care · 2026Article
- Critique of impure reason: Unveiling the reasoning behaviour of medical large language models.eLife · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into clinical decision-making, ensuring trustworthy reasoning is paramount. However, current evaluation strategies of LLMs' medical reasoning capability either suffer from unsatisfactory assessment or poor scalability, and a rigorous benchmark remains absent. To address this, we present MedThink-Bench, a benchmark designed for rigorous and scalable assessment of LLMs' medical reasoning. MedThink-Bench comprises 500 high-complexity questions spanning ten medical domains, accompanied by expert-authored, step-by-step rationales that elucidate intermediate reasoning processes. Further, we introduce LLM-w-Rationale, an evaluation framework that combines fine-grained rationale assessment with an LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, enabling expert-level fidelity in evaluating reasoning quality while preserving scalability. Results show that LLM-w-Rationale correlates strongly with expert evaluation (Pearson coefficient up to 0.87) while requiring only 1.4% of the evaluation time. Overall, MedThink-Bench establishes a rigorous and scalable standard for evaluating medical reasoning in LLMs, advancing their safe and responsible deployment in clinical practice.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.