Large language models (LLMs) show promise in automating clinical diagnosis, yet their non-transparent decision-making and limited alignment with diagnostic standards hinder trust and clinical adoption. We address this challenge by proposing a two-stage diagnostic framework that enhances transparency, trustworthiness, and reliability. First, we introduce Evidence-Guided Diagnostic Reasoning (EGDR), which guides LLMs to generate structured diagnostic hypotheses by interleaving evidence extraction with logical reasoning grounded in DSM-5 criteria. Second, we propose a Diagnosis Confidence Scoring (DCS) module that evaluates the factual accuracy and logical consistency of generated diagnoses through two interpretable metrics: the Knowledge Attribution Score (KAS) and the Logic Consistency Score (LCS). Evaluated on the D4 dataset with pseudo-labels, EGDR outperforms direct in-context prompting and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) across five LLMs. For instance, on OpenBioLLM, EGDR improves accuracy from 0.31 (Direct) to 0.76 and increases DCS from 0.50 to 0.67. On MedLlama, DCS rises from 0.58 (CoT) to 0.77. Overall, EGDR yields up to +45% accuracy and +36% DCS gains over baseline methods, offering a clinically grounded, interpretable foundation for trustworthy AI-assisted diagnosis.

W e assemble a large, domain - specialized clinical corpus and a clinician - validated reasoning set, and develop RareSeek - R1 via staged instruction tuning, chain - of - thought learning, and graph - grounded retrieval. Across multicenter EHR narratives and public benchmarks, RareSeek - R1 attains state - of - the - art accuracy, robust generalization, and stability under noisy or overlapping phenotypes. Augmented retrieval yields the largest gains when narratives pair with prioritized variants by resolving ambiguity and aligning candidates to mechanisms. Human studies show performance on par with experienced physicians and consistent gains in assistive use. Notably, transparent reasoning highlights decisive non - phenotypic evidence (median 23.1%, such as imaging, interventions, functional tests) underpinning many correct diagnoses. This work advances a narrative - first, knowledge - integrated reasoning paradigm that shortens the diagnostic odyssey and enables auditable, clinically translatable decision support.

Rare diseases represent the long tail of medical imaging, where AI models often fail due to the scarcity of representative training data. In clinical workflows, radiologists frequently consult case reports and literature when confronted with unfamiliar findings. Following this line of reasoning, we introduce RADAR, Retrieval Augmented Diagnostic Reasoning Agents, an agentic system for rare disease detection in brain MRI. Our approach uses AI agents with access to external medical knowledge by embedding both case reports and literature using sentence transformers and indexing them with FAISS to enable efficient similarity search. The agent retrieves clinically relevant evidence to guide diagnostic decision making on unseen diseases, without the need of additional training. Designed as a model-agnostic reasoning module, RADAR can be seamlessly integrated with diverse large language models, consistently improving their rare pathology recognition and interpretability. On the NOVA dataset comprising 280 distinct rare diseases, RADAR achieves up to a 10.2% performance gain, with the strongest improvements observed for open source models such as DeepSeek. Beyond accuracy, the retrieved examples provide interpretable, literature grounded explanations, highlighting retrieval-augmented reasoning as a powerful paradigm for low-prevalence conditions in medical imaging.

Recent progress in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) has enabled promising applications in medical tasks, such as report generation and visual question answering. However, existing benchmarks focus mainly on the final diagnostic answer, offering limited insight into whether models engage in clinically meaningful reasoning. To address this, we present CheXStruct and CXReasonBench, a structured pipeline and benchmark built on the publicly available MIMIC-CXR-JPG dataset. CheXStruct automatically derives a sequence of intermediate reasoning steps directly from chest X-rays, such as segmenting anatomical regions, deriving anatomical landmarks and diagnostic measurements, computing diagnostic indices, and applying clinical thresholds. CXReasonBench leverages this pipeline to evaluate whether models can perform clinically valid reasoning steps and to what extent they can learn from structured guidance, enabling fine-grained and transparent assessment of diagnostic reasoning. The benchmark comprises 18,988 QA pairs across 12 diagnostic tasks and 1,200 cases, each paired with up to 4 visual inputs, and supports multi-path, multi-stage evaluation including visual grounding via anatomical region selection and diagnostic measurements. Even the strongest of 12 evaluated LVLMs struggle with structured reasoning and generalization, often failing to link abstract knowledge with anatomically grounded visual interpretation. The code is available at https://github.com/ttumyche/CXReasonBench

We present ViDRiP-LLaVA, the first large multimodal model (LMM) in computational pathology that integrates three distinct image scenarios, including single patch images, automatically segmented pathology video clips, and manually segmented pathology videos. This integration closely mirrors the natural diagnostic process of pathologists. By generating detailed histological descriptions and culminating in a definitive sign-out diagnosis, ViDRiP-LLaVA bridges visual narratives with diagnostic reasoning. Central to our approach is the ViDRiP-Instruct dataset, comprising 4278 video and diagnosis-specific chain-of-thought instructional pairs sourced from educational histopathology videos on YouTube. Although high-quality data is critical for enhancing diagnostic reasoning, its creation is time-intensive and limited in volume. To overcome this challenge, we transfer knowledge from existing single-image instruction datasets to train on weakly annotated, keyframe-extracted clips, followed by fine-tuning on manually segmented videos. ViDRiP-LLaVA establishes a new benchmark in pathology video analysis and offers a promising foundation for future AI systems that support clinical decision-making through integrated visual and diagnostic reasoning. Our code, data, and model are publicly available at: https://github.com/QuIIL/ViDRiP-LLaVA.

Large language models (LLMs) show promise for diagnostic reasoning but often lack reliable, knowledge grounded inference. Knowledge graphs (KGs), such as the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), offer structured biomedical knowledge that can support trustworthy reasoning. Prior approaches typically integrate KGs via retrieval augmented generation or fine tuning, inserting KG content into prompts rather than enabling structured reasoning. We explore an alternative paradigm: treating the LLM as a reward model of KG reasoning paths, where the model learns to judge whether a candidate path leads to correct diagnosis for a given patient input. This approach is inspired by recent work that leverages reward training to enhance model reasoning abilities, and grounded in computational theory, which suggests that verifying a solution is often easier than generating one from scratch. It also parallels physicians' diagnostic assessment, where they judge which sequences of findings and intermediate conditions most plausibly support a diagnosis. We first systematically evaluate five task formulation for knowledge path judging and eight training paradigm. Second, we test whether the path judging abilities generalize to downstream diagnostic tasks, including diagnosis summarization and medical question answering. Experiments with three open source instruct-tuned LLMs reveal both promise and brittleness: while specific reward optimization and distillation lead to strong path-judging performance, the transferability to downstream tasks remain weak. Our finding provides the first systematic assessment of "reward model style" reasoning over clinical KGs, offering insights into how structured, reward-based supervision influences diagnostic reasoning in GenAI systems for healthcare.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in medical question answering but often struggle with hallucinations and shallow reasoning, particularly in tasks requiring nuanced clinical understanding. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) offers a practical and privacy-preserving way to enhance LLMs with external medical knowledge. However, most existing approaches rely on surface-level semantic retrieval and lack the structured reasoning needed for clinical decision support. We introduce MedCoT-RAG, a domain-specific framework that combines causal-aware document retrieval with structured chain-of-thought prompting tailored to medical workflows. This design enables models to retrieve evidence aligned with diagnostic logic and generate step-by-step causal reasoning reflective of real-world clinical practice. Experiments on three diverse medical QA benchmarks show that MedCoT-RAG outperforms strong baselines by up to 10.3% over vanilla RAG and 6.4% over advanced domain-adapted methods, improving accuracy, interpretability, and consistency in complex medical tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently showcased remarkable capabilities, spanning a wide range of tasks and applications, including those in the medical domain. Models like GPT-4 excel in medical question answering but may face challenges in the lack of interpretability when handling complex tasks in real clinical settings. We thus introduce the diagnostic reasoning dataset for clinical notes (DiReCT), aiming at evaluating the reasoning ability and interpretability of LLMs compared to human doctors. It contains 511 clinical notes, each meticulously annotated by physicians, detailing the diagnostic reasoning process from observations in a clinical note to the final diagnosis. Additionally, a diagnostic knowledge graph is provided to offer essential knowledge for reasoning, which may not be covered in the training data of existing LLMs.

The differential diagnosis of neurodegenerative dementias is a challenging clinical task, mainly because of the overlap in symptom presentation and the similarity of patterns observed in structural neuroimaging. To improve diagnostic efficiency and accuracy, deep learning-based methods such as Convolutional Neural Networks and Vision Transformers have been proposed for the automatic classification of brain MRIs. However, despite their strong predictive performance, these models find limited clinical utility due to their opaque decision making. In this work, we propose a framework that integrates two core components to enhance diagnostic transparency. First, we introduce a modular pipeline for converting 3D T1-weighted brain MRIs into textual radiology reports. Second, we explore the potential of modern Large Language Models (LLMs) to assist clinicians in the differential diagnosis between Frontotemporal dementia subtypes, Alzheimer's disease, and normal aging based on the generated reports. To bridge the gap between predictive accuracy and explainability, we employ reinforcement learning to incentivize diagnostic reasoning in LLMs. Without requiring supervised reasoning traces or distillation from larger models, our approach enables the emergence of structured diagnostic rationales grounded in neuroimaging findings. Unlike post-hoc explainability methods that retrospectively justify model decisions, our framework generates diagnostic rationales as part of the inference process-producing causally grounded explanations that inform and guide the model's decision-making process. In doing so, our framework matches the diagnostic performance of existing deep learning methods while offering rationales that support its diagnostic conclusions.

Doctors and patients alike increasingly use Large Language Models (LLMs) to diagnose clinical cases. However, unlike domains such as math or coding, where correctness can be objectively defined by the final answer, medical diagnosis requires both the outcome and the reasoning process to be accurate. Currently, widely used medical benchmarks like MedQA and MMLU assess only accuracy in the final answer, overlooking the quality and faithfulness of the clinical reasoning process. To address this limitation, we introduce MedCaseReasoning, the first open-access dataset for evaluating LLMs on their ability to align with clinician-authored diagnostic reasoning. The dataset includes 14,489 diagnostic question-and-answer cases, each paired with detailed reasoning statements derived from open-access medical case reports. We evaluate state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs on MedCaseReasoning and find significant shortcomings in their diagnoses and reasoning: for instance, the top-performing open-source model, DeepSeek-R1, achieves only 48% 10-shot diagnostic accuracy and mentions only 64% of the clinician reasoning statements (recall). However, we demonstrate that fine-tuning LLMs on the reasoning traces derived from MedCaseReasoning significantly improves diagnostic accuracy and clinical reasoning recall by an average relative gain of 29% and 41%, respectively. The open-source dataset, code, and models are available at https://github.com/kevinwu23/Stanford-MedCaseReasoning.