Papers › Medical Reasoning with Large Language Models: A Survey and MR-Bench
Medical Reasoning with Large Language Models: A Survey and MR-Bench
Xiaohan Ren, Chenxiao Fan, Wenyin Ma, Hongliang He, Chongming Gao, Xiaoyan Zhao, Fuli Feng
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance on medical exam-style tasks, motivating growing interest in their deployment in real-world clinical settings. However, clinical decision-making is inherently safety-critical, context-dependent, and conducted under evolving evidence. In such situations, reliable LLM performance depends not on factual recall alone, but on robust medical reasoning. In this work, we present a comprehensive review of medical reasoning with LLMs. Grounded in cognitive theories of clinical reasoning, we conceptualize medical reasoning as an iterative process of abduction, deduction, and induction, and organize existing methods into seven major technical routes spanning training-based and training-free approaches. We further conduct a unified cross-benchmark evaluation of representative medical reasoning models under a consistent experimental setting, enabling a more systematic and comparable assessment of the empirical impact of existing methods. To better assess clinically grounded reasoning, we introduce MR-Bench, a benchmark derived from real-world hospital data. Evaluations on MR-Bench expose a pronounced gap between exam-level performance and accuracy on authentic clinical decision tasks. Overall, this survey provides a unified view of existing medical reasoning methods, benchmarks, and evaluation practices, and highlights key gaps between current model performance and the requirements of real-world clinical reasoning.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2604.08559")
Code
Syntology Ran 4 of 4 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · honoured contract; 2 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 3 samples from 1 repository, 3 ran; 1 identical to code first harvested elsewhere. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
4 samples harvested; 4 ran; 2 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 4 of the 4 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from RXH04-USTC/Medical-Reasoning-Survey. Some samples are identical code Syntology first harvested from another repository; for those, this paper's copy is not located and its licence is not recorded. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
10f0fc9fecb6a8d7 · report
25028bc1c5892de2 · report
abe344037ab0d857 · report
2f7829f62b92f768 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2604.08559, was issued in April 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections