REVIEW 5 cited by
Medical Reasoning in the Era of LLMs: A Systematic Review of Enhancement Techniques and Applications
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Medical Reasoning in the Era of LLMs: A Systematic Review of Enhancement Techniques and Applications
read the original abstract
The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine has enabled impressive capabilities, yet a critical gap remains in their ability to perform systematic, transparent, and verifiable reasoning, a cornerstone of clinical practice. This has catalyzed a shift from single-step answer generation to the development of LLMs explicitly designed for medical reasoning. This paper provides the first systematic review of this emerging field. We propose a taxonomy of reasoning enhancement techniques, categorized into training-time strategies (e.g., supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning) and test-time mechanisms (e.g., prompt engineering, multi-agent systems). We analyze how these techniques are applied across different data modalities (text, image, code) and in key clinical applications such as diagnosis, education, and treatment planning. Furthermore, we survey the evolution of evaluation benchmarks from simple accuracy metrics to sophisticated assessments of reasoning quality and visual interpretability. Based on an analysis of 60 seminal studies from 2022-2025, we conclude by identifying critical challenges, including the faithfulness-plausibility gap and the need for native multimodal reasoning, and outlining future directions toward building efficient, robust, and sociotechnically responsible medical AI.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Information-seeking failures of large language models in agentic clinical reasoning
LLMs systematically under-request critical molecular and cytogenetic data in multi-round oncology, capping accuracy at 68% despite high knowledge scores and coherent reasoning traces.
-
Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches
Survey of RLM adoption in 28 disciplines reveals maturity disparities via a new assessment framework, with focus on development, evaluation, and public resources.
-
Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches
A survey of RLM use in 28 disciplines reveals uneven adoption and introduces a maturity assessment framework showing larger gaps when limited to public resources.
-
CLR-voyance: Reinforcing Open-Ended Reasoning for Inpatient Clinical Decision Support with Outcome-Aware Rubrics
CLR-voyance reformulates inpatient reasoning as POMDP with clinician-validated outcome rubrics, yielding an 8B model that outperforms larger frontier models on the authors' new benchmark.
-
Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches
A survey of reasoning language model adoption across 28 ERC scientific disciplines finds large maturity gaps, especially when only public resources are counted.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.