Papers › Enhancing LLMs' Clinical Reasoning with Real-World Data from a Nationwide Sepsis Registry
Enhancing LLMs' Clinical Reasoning with Real-World Data from a Nationwide Sepsis Registry
Junu Kim, Chaeeun Shim, Sungjin Park, Su Yeon Lee, Gee Young Suh, Chae-Man Lim, Seong Jin Choi, Song Mi Moon, Kyoung-Ho Song, Eu Suk Kim, Hong Bin Kim, Sejoong Kim, Chami Im, Dong-Wan Kang, Yong Soo Kim, Hee-Joon Bae, Sung Yoon Lim, Han-Gil Jeong, Edward Choi
Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities across general domains, their effectiveness in real-world clinical practice remains limited. This is likely due to their insufficient exposure to real-world clinical data during training, as such data is typically not included due to privacy concerns. To address this, we propose enhancing the clinical reasoning capabilities of LLMs by leveraging real-world clinical data. We constructed reasoning-intensive questions from a nationwide sepsis registry and fine-tuned Phi-4 on these questions using reinforcement learning, resulting in C-Reason. C-Reason exhibited strong clinical reasoning capabilities on the in-domain test set, as evidenced by both quantitative metrics and expert evaluations. Furthermore, its enhanced reasoning capabilities generalized to a sepsis dataset involving different tasks and patient cohorts, an open-ended consultations on antibiotics use task, and other diseases. Future research should focus on training LLMs with large-scale, multi-disease clinical datasets to develop more powerful, general-purpose clinical reasoning models.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. 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
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
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