Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Automating Expert-Level Medical Reasoning Evaluation of Large Language Models

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

arxiv 2507.07988 v1 pith:7VNS5C3N submitted 2025-07-10 cs.CL

Automating Expert-Level Medical Reasoning Evaluation of Large Language Models

classification cs.CL
keywords reasoningllmsmedicalevaluationmedthink-benchmodelsassessmentbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into clinical decision-making, ensuring transparent and trustworthy reasoning is essential. However, existing evaluation strategies of LLMs' medical reasoning capability either suffer from unsatisfactory assessment or poor scalability, and a rigorous benchmark remains lacking. To address this, we introduce MedThink-Bench, a benchmark designed for rigorous, explainable, and scalable assessment of LLMs' medical reasoning. MedThink-Bench comprises 500 challenging questions across ten medical domains, each annotated with expert-crafted step-by-step rationales. Building on this, we propose LLM-w-Ref, a novel evaluation framework that leverages fine-grained rationales and LLM-as-a-Judge mechanisms to assess intermediate reasoning with expert-level fidelity while maintaining scalability. Experiments show that LLM-w-Ref exhibits a strong positive correlation with expert judgments. Benchmarking twelve state-of-the-art LLMs, we find that smaller models (e.g., MedGemma-27B) can surpass larger proprietary counterparts (e.g., OpenAI-o3). Overall, MedThink-Bench offers a foundational tool for evaluating LLMs' medical reasoning, advancing their safe and responsible deployment in clinical practice.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Reference-Free Evaluation of Reasoning in Open-Ended Question Answering

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    An NLI-hypergraph audit with deterministic AND–OR search labels LLM reasoning segments as supported, unsupported, or orphaned, improving balanced F1 over LLM-as-judge on a new 40-case clinical benchmark.