arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 4 min read

Clinical Reasoning Graphs: Structured Evaluation of LLM Diagnostic Reasoning Reveals Competence Without Consistency

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2606.29876 (cs)
[Submitted on 29 Jun 2026]

Title:Clinical Reasoning Graphs: Structured Evaluation of LLM Diagnostic Reasoning Reveals Competence Without Consistency

Authors:Nisarg A. Patel (University of California, San Francisco)
View a PDF of the paper titled Clinical Reasoning Graphs: Structured Evaluation of LLM Diagnostic Reasoning Reveals Competence Without Consistency, by Nisarg A. Patel (University of California and 1 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Modern large language models (LLMs) reach 60-70% diagnostic accuracy on complex clinical case benchmarks, but accuracy alone cannot distinguish stable clinically-grounded reasoning from pattern matching. We introduce clinical reasoning graphs, structured graph representations extracted from free-text LLM diagnostic traces using a domain-grounded ontology with 5 node types and 7 edge types. We apply this pipeline to 750 traces from five LLMs across 50 New England Journal of Medicine Clinicopathological Conference cases and three prompt conditions, and test whether diagnostic traces show stable structured reasoning patterns, or diagnostic schemas, for clinically similar cases. We operationalize this as higher graph similarity among clinically similar cases than among clinically dissimilar ones. Across 15 model-condition comparisons, within-cluster and between-cluster composite similarity are nearly equal, and no comparison survives multiple-testing correction; a component-level analysis finds any residual content signal far below schema scale. Graph similarity is also nearly identical for pairs of models that are both correct (0.488) and both incorrect (0.484), suggesting that graph structure captures a dimension not reflected in diagnostic accuracy. Structured reflection prompting increases explicit discriminating-feature analysis within traces (+33%) but does not increase cross-case consistency. These results show diagnostic competence without schema-scale reasoning consistency, and indicate that final-answer accuracy should be complemented by process-level evaluation. We release the ontology, extraction pipeline, validation protocol, and the extracted reasoning graphs and similarity artifacts as resources for structured evaluation of LLM clinical reasoning.
Comments: Spotlight Paper, Proceedings of the Workshop on Structured Data for Health at the 43rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Seoul, South Korea
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Quantitative Methods (q-bio.QM)
Cite as: arXiv:2606.29876 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2606.29876v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.29876
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Nisarg Patel [view email]
[v1] Mon, 29 Jun 2026 07:16:59 UTC (219 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Clinical Reasoning Graphs: Structured Evaluation of LLM Diagnostic Reasoning Reveals Competence Without Consistency, by Nisarg A. Patel (University of California and 1 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language