Clinical diagnosis requires progressive integration of patient history, physical examination, laboratory findings, medical images, and diagnostic-informative tests. However, most multimodal medical benchmarks evaluate fixed inputs or endpoint answers, while fully interactive diagnostic agents conflate evidence selection with evidence interpretation. We present a source-grounded framework to construct progressive multimodal diagnostic dialogues from case reports and an evaluation strategy for assessing MLLMs on final diagnosis, diagnostic reasoning, and image-finding interpretation. Evaluation on 24 internal medicine case reports showed that our framework can accurately convert case reports into reference dialogues, achieving a diagnosis F1 of 0.99 and a reasoning-quality score of 4.79 out of 5. Evaluation on two frontier MLLMs (o4-mini and Claude Haiku 4.5) achieved reasoning-quality scores of 2.75 and 2.50, respectively, with substantially lower diagnosis, reasoning, and image-finding F1 scores. The results demonstrate that fluent responses do not necessarily reflect evidence-grounded clinical reasoning and highlight the utility of the proposed framework for evaluating multimodal diagnostic reasoning.
Clinical diagnostic evaluation should not only assess whether models can provide correct diagnoses, but also reflect the realities of clinical practice, including progressive disclosure of multimodal information, dynamic updating of diagnostic hypotheses, and continuous refinement of clinical reasoning. However, existing evaluations of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) typically rely on single-turn or isolated tasks, making it difficult to fully capture the complexity of real-world clinical diagnosis. To bridge this gap, we developed ClinMM-Bench, the largest multi-turn multimodal clinical diagnostic evaluation benchmark to date. ClinMM-Bench contains 1,089 challenging real-world clinical cases and 3,760 medical images across eight specialties. We systematically evaluated 15 representative MLLMs using a two-level evaluation framework that assessed both diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic reasoning quality. Results showed that proprietary models achieved the highest overall diagnostic accuracy, but the proportion of completely correct diagnoses remained limited across all models. In terms of diagnostic reasoning quality, current models can identify plausible diagnostic directions but still have considerable limitations in generating reliable diagnostic reasoning. Error analysis further identified five representative failure modes: information synthesis failure, knowledge mapping error, perception error, premature closure, and visual hallucination.