Automating Expert-Level Medical Reasoning Evaluation of Large Language Models
This provides a scalable and rigorous tool for assessing LLMs in clinical decision-making, addressing a critical gap for safe deployment in healthcare.
The authors tackled the problem of evaluating large language models' medical reasoning by introducing MedThink-Bench, a benchmark with 500 questions and expert rationales, and LLM-w-Ref, an evaluation framework that shows strong correlation with expert judgments and reveals smaller models outperforming larger ones.
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.