arXiv CS
open access
A rubric landscape for evaluating clinical reasoning in large language models: what exists, what is missing, and what needs to be combined
Exam-style accuracy does not establish whether large language models (LLMs) reason well over clinical records. We define clinical reasoning as integrating and updating evidence across time and sources to form, revise and justify a patient's problem representation and a defensible plan. This struct
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- A rubric landscape for evaluating clinical reasoning in large language models: what exists, what is missing, and what needs to be combined#1157209
- RL-STaR: Theoretical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning Frameworks for Self-Taught Reasoner#1037681
- First the Rules, Then the Summary: Piloting a Design for Accurate LLM-Generated Clinical Summaries#258702
- A Pilot Study to Explore Length and Readability Characteristics of Subject Information Sheets/Informed Consent Forms of Clinical Trial Applications in the EU.#157241
- A Pilot Study to Explore Length and Readability Characteristics of Subject Information Sheets/Informed Consent Forms of Clinical Trial Applications in the EU.#154171
Record · ID 1161085
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive