How Seemingly Inconsequential Design Choices Dictate Performance of LLMs in Pathology

General-purpose large language models (LLMs) are routinely used as baselines when evaluating specialized pathology models on whole-slide images (WSIs). Because WSIs exceed contemporary model context limits, LLM baselines routinely use small, high-magnification patches processed independently via majority voting, without systematic evaluation of seemingly inconsequential design choices such as patch size, patch count, and magnification. Generalist LLMs have consistently underperformed specialized systems, reinforcing the perception that domain-specific training or architectural adaptation is necessary for pathology tasks involving WSIs. Here, we conduct a systematic factorial analysis of four input design factors: inference mode, patch size, magnification, and patch count. We demonstrate that prior studies have overstated the gap between specialized models and general-purpose LLMs by choosing non-optimized input configurations. On the MultiPathQA benchmark, switching to a single balanced configuration (large patches at lower magnification, processed jointly) raises GPT-5 from 15.1% to 39.5% on cancer-type classification (TCGA) and from 38.1% to 62.9% on organ classification (GTEx). Per-task optimization yields further gains up to 43.9% (TCGA) and 71.6% (GTEx). The same configuration generalizes to two other models and to a fully held-out CPTAC cohort, where it improves Gemini 3 Flash by 23.4 percentage points without any task-specific tuning.

Superhuman performance of a large language model on the reasoning tasks of a physician

Performance of large language models (LLMs) on medical tasks has traditionally been evaluated using multiple choice question benchmarks. However, such benchmarks are highly constrained, saturated with repeated impressive performance by LLMs, and have an unclear relationship to performance in real clinical scenarios. Clinical reasoning, the process by which physicians employ critical thinking to gather and synthesize clinical data to diagnose and manage medical problems, remains an attractive benchmark for model performance. Prior LLMs have shown promise in outperforming clinicians in routine and complex diagnostic scenarios. We sought to evaluate OpenAI's o1-preview model, a model developed to increase run-time via chain of thought processes prior to generating a response. We characterize the performance of o1-preview with five experiments including differential diagnosis generation, display of diagnostic reasoning, triage differential diagnosis, probabilistic reasoning, and management reasoning, adjudicated by physician experts with validated psychometrics. Our primary outcome was comparison of the o1-preview output to identical prior experiments that have historical human controls and benchmarks of previous LLMs. Significant improvements were observed with differential diagnosis generation and quality of diagnostic and management reasoning. No improvements were observed with probabilistic reasoning or triage differential diagnosis. This study highlights o1-preview's ability to perform strongly on tasks that require complex critical thinking such as diagnosis and management while its performance on probabilistic reasoning tasks was similar to past models. New robust benchmarks and scalable evaluation of LLM capabilities compared to human physicians are needed along with trials evaluating AI in real clinical settings.