Longitudinal clinical reasoning requires large language models (LLMs) to identify and integrate relevant evidence distributed across extended patient histories.
Although long-context models can process increasingly large amounts of information, providing more history does not necessarily make relevant evidence more accessible or improve reasoning.
Comparison of Context Strategies
We compare five context strategies (Full, Recent, Episodic, Semantic, and Hybrid) on MedLoCoMo across four open-weight LLMs, examining answer correctness, robustness to query-evidence distance, and abstention on questions with unsupported premises.
Episodic and Hybrid generally achieve the strongest overall accuracy, while Recent Context degrades most as supporting evidence becomes more distant; Episodic and Hybrid maintain the highest accuracy at long distances.
Analysis of Adversarial Questions
Analysis of adversarial questions further shows that strong performance on answerable questions does not necessarily translate to successful abstention when the available history does not support the requested conclusion.
These findings show that reliable longitudinal reasoning depends not only on how much history an LLM can access, but critically on how relevant evidence is selected and presented for reasoning.