Medical Reinforcement Learning

• Medical-oriented RL is a subfield that adapts reinforcement learning to optimize sequential clinical decisions, ensuring safety and personalization.
• It leverages methodologies such as DQNs, actor–critic, and batch/offline RL to drive measurable improvements in treatment and diagnosis accuracy.
• Key challenges include sparse rewards and partial observability, addressed through reward shaping, uncertainty quantification, and clinician-in-the-loop strategies.

Medical-oriented reinforcement learning is a subdiscipline of reinforcement learning (RL) that develops algorithms, representations, and training frameworks specifically to address complex sequential decision-making problems encountered in healthcare. In medical settings, RL is deployed to learn personalized intervention strategies, optimize dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs), automate annotation, accelerate diagnosis, perform clinical reasoning, and enable multimodal information extraction, all under the constraints of noisy, sparse, high-stakes and safety-critical environments. This field draws on foundational work in Markov Decision Processes (MDPs), function approximation, off-policy evaluation, and, more recently, deep and LLM RL, integrating domain knowledge throughout the pipeline to enhance trust, interpretability, and clinical acceptability.

1. Mathematical and Algorithmic Foundations

Medical RL typically formalizes clinical problems as decision processes—most often MDPs or partially observable MDPs (POMDPs)—where the patient trajectory is a series of states $S_t$ (observed or inferred physiological/clinical parameters), actions $A_t$ (treatments, test requests, or questioning), and rewards $R_t$ (reflecting outcomes such as survival, diagnosis accuracy, or clinical improvement). The agent’s objective is to identify optimal (or near-optimal) policies $\pi^*$ that maximize (expected) cumulative clinical utility: $$V^\pi(s) = \mathbb{E}_\pi\left[\sum_{t=0}^\infty \gamma^t R_t \mid S_0 = s\right].$$ This objective may be redefined for certain domains, e.g., maximizing survival probability via a multiplicative return

$$\mathbb{E}_\pi\left[ \prod_t (1 - h(S_t, A_t)) \right]$$

where $h(S_t, A_t)$ is the conditional hazard of mortality (Nanayakkara, 2022). Deep Q-Networks (DQNs), actor–critic algorithms, batch/offline RL (e.g., CQL, BCQ, BRAC, IQL), and distributional RL with uncertainty decomposition (UA-DQN) are prevalent. Importantly, off-policy algorithms are favored since most clinical data are retrospective and interventionist trials are usually infeasible (Perera et al., 28 Aug 2025).

Crucial algorithmic advances include:

• Multiple action policies for sets of simultaneous actions (e.g., subset selection in test ordering) (Chen et al., 2019).
• Curriculum- and group-relative RL for complex multimodal and open-ended tasks in medical VQA and EHR reasoning (Rui et al., 25 May 2025, Lin et al., 30 May 2025).
• Set-valued policies for near-optimal treatment slates, supporting clinician-in-the-loop decision making (Tang et al., 2020).
• Reward design and shaping strategies, integrating domain-specific functionals, multi-objective, and inverse RL (Riachi et al., 2021, Yazzourh et al., 29 Jun 2024).
• Lifelong RL and continual learning supporting domain shifts (changing imaging environments, evolving guidelines) (Zheng et al., 2023).

2. Key Clinical Applications and Use Cases

Medical RL spans a broad range of clinical domains:

Clinical Area	Representative RL Task/Approach	Notable References
Dynamic Treatment Regimes	Sequence optimization for chronic conditions (e.g., GVHD, diabetes, ADHD, oncology)	(Liu et al., 2018, Yazzourh et al., 29 Jun 2024)
Critical Care (ICU)	Sepsis, sedation, mechanical ventilation, heparin dosing, resource scheduling	(Li et al., 2020, Shirali et al., 2023, Perera et al., 28 Aug 2025, Nanayakkara, 2022)
Diagnosis/Testing	Sequential symptom query/test suggestion, triage, questioning strategies	(Chen et al., 2019, Buchard et al., 2020, Shaham et al., 2020)
Clinical Reasoning	Medical QA, open-ended VQA, EHR-based reasoning, patient-trial matching	(Zhang et al., 27 Feb 2025, Rui et al., 25 May 2025, Lin et al., 30 May 2025, Liu et al., 18 Sep 2025)
Imaging	Lifelong learning across sequence/pathology variants, landmark detection, segmentation, VIE	(Zheng et al., 2023, Liu et al., 16 Jun 2025)
Automation and Annotation	Event labeling for clinical monitoring data, multi-class alarm annotation	(Saripalli et al., 2019)
Robotics/Scheduling	OR automation, resource management, drug discovery	(Yu et al., 2019, Perera et al., 28 Aug 2025)

In DTR optimization, RL frameworks integrate registry or EHR data to recommend stepwise, patient-specific interventions—in hematopoietic transplant (GVHD) (Liu et al., 2018), sepsis (Li et al., 2020), chemotherapy (Yu et al., 2019), chronic diseases (Yazzourh et al., 29 Jun 2024), and others. In diagnostic RL, agents guide symptom and test selection under efficiency constraints, yielding high abnormality detection at minimized test counts (Chen et al., 2019). Triage systems learn when to cease questioning and commit to risk-stratified clinical actions (Buchard et al., 2020).

Recent advances demonstrate RL-driven medical reasoning in LLMs using MCQA and multimodal VQA tasks, often enhanced by curriculum-based RLVR (RL from verifiable rewards), structured output constraints, and adaptive mining of challenging clinical cases (Zhang et al., 27 Feb 2025, Rui et al., 25 May 2025, Liu et al., 18 Sep 2025).

3. Domain-Specific Challenges and Solutions

Medical RL faces unique methodological and translational challenges:

• Sparse and Delayed Rewards: Clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality) are infrequent events. To avoid instability and policy myopia, approaches deploy multi-objective RL to leverage frequent—but noisy—biomarker proxies, pruned action sets, or survival-oriented reward formulations (Shirali et al., 2023, Nanayakkara, 2022).
• Partial Observability and Non-Markovianity: Patient states often lack full observability or Markov property. Embedding historical trajectories via RNNs or conditional VAEs in the state representation mitigates these limitations (Li et al., 2020).
• Bias, Safety, and Policy Evaluation: Off-policy evaluation (IS, WIS, doubly robust estimators) quantifies policy value under distribution shift, with "shadow mode" expert comparison frameworks providing additional clinical validation (Li et al., 2020, Riachi et al., 2021).
• Data Heterogeneity and Catastrophic Forgetting: Continual/lifelong RL frameworks with selective experience replay maintain competence under dynamic task shifts (e.g., new MRI protocols) (Zheng et al., 2023).
• Reward Specification: Procedures for preference-based reward modeling, inverse RL, and expert-in-the-loop shape reward functions to reflect clinical goals and minimize reward hacking (Riachi et al., 2021, Zhang et al., 27 Feb 2025).
• Uncertainty Quantification: UA-DQN and Bayesian quantile methods decouple aleatoric from epistemic uncertainty, supporting risk-aware recommendations (Festor et al., 2021).

4. Integration of Medical Knowledge and Human Expertise

Successful medical RL incorporates domain expertise at multiple stages:

• Clinical-state/action space construction and variable selection, often requiring bidirectional collaboration with domain experts (Yazzourh et al., 29 Jun 2024).
• Reward shaping grounded in real-world clinical endpoints, sometimes integrating multi-objective criteria (effectiveness, cost, side effects).
• Policy constraints via "clinician-in-the-loop" supervision, set-valued policies, or direct integration of clinical preferences within value function calculations (e.g., deferring to human policy in critical states) (Tang et al., 2020, Yazzourh et al., 29 Jun 2024).
• Hybrid frameworks combining supervised learning (e.g., distillation from expert traces or SFT warmup) with RL fine-tuning to accelerate convergence and ensure interpretability (Lin et al., 30 May 2025, Liu et al., 18 Sep 2025).

Recently, reasoning-oriented initialization via chain-of-thought distillation, knowledge-graph–guided synthesis to cover rare entities and multi-hop inference, and curriculum-based RLVR have been shown to yield robust, auditable medical AI systems (Liu et al., 18 Sep 2025, Zhang et al., 27 Feb 2025).

5. Evaluation Metrics and Empirical Outcomes

Evaluation in medical RL extends beyond cumulative reward or accuracy, comprising:

• Top-N and group-relative accuracy (expert agreement, safe/appropriate action selection) (Liu et al., 2018, Buchard et al., 2020, Rui et al., 25 May 2025)
• Gradient-normalized reward advantages to prevent reward hacking, supporting diverse open- and close-ended outputs (Rui et al., 25 May 2025).
• Policy value (OPE), difference in outcome rates (e.g., $\Delta$ mortality rate), recall on physician actions, similarity to clinical practice (Shirali et al., 2023).
• Uncertainty measures (aleatoric/epistemic variance) to inform calibration and trust (Festor et al., 2021).
• Interpretability scores (structured reasoning trace quality, answer formatting adherence), custom rewards for format compliance, precision–recall balance for information extraction (Liu et al., 16 Jun 2025).
• Statistical significance (e.g., p-values for paired tests across tasks/environments) (Zheng et al., 2023).

Empirical findings indicate RL-based test suggestion can improve top-5 diagnosis accuracy by up to 14% (Chen et al., 2019), personalized DRL frameworks achieve 75–90% top-N treatment recommendation accuracy (Liu et al., 2018), and curriculum RL in multimodal VQA yields 11.4% and 5.7% gains over baselines in in-domain and out-of-domain generalization, respectively (Rui et al., 25 May 2025). For LLM-based clinical reasoning, RLVR outperforms or matches SFT on standard MCQA and substantially improves OOD robustness (Zhang et al., 27 Feb 2025, Liu et al., 18 Sep 2025).

6. Future Directions and Open Problems

Prominent open directions include:

• Robustness and Safety: Advancing offline RL evaluation, support for rare/unseen state-action pairs, and interpretability remain key avenues. Clinical RL systems require continuous alignment with evolving standards, regulatory requirements, and explicit human oversight (Riachi et al., 2021, Perera et al., 28 Aug 2025).
• Non-Markovian and Causal Dynamics: Further development of models accounting for full patient history (recurrent state construction), causal inference, and counterfactual reasoning is necessary for trustworthy deployment (Li et al., 2020, Yazzourh et al., 29 Jun 2024).
• Multi-objective, Preference-based, and Set-valued Policies: Continued research into advanced policy classes that present physicians with near-equivalent alternatives, facilitate preference elicitation, or optimize multiple endpoints (e.g., efficacy, harm, cost) (Tang et al., 2020, Yazzourh et al., 29 Jun 2024).
• Lifelong and Federated RL: Mechanisms for decentralized, privacy-preserving model training and continual adaptation across sites and tasks, especially in distributed health systems (Zheng et al., 2023, Perera et al., 28 Aug 2025).
• Human-Model Collaboration and Auditing: Formalization of clinician-in-the-loop learning, curriculum-based RL to address open-ended reasoning and generalizability, and integration with audit-ready, explainable frameworks (Rui et al., 25 May 2025, Liu et al., 18 Sep 2025).
• Extending RLVR and Reasoning-Oriented Training: Further paper into reward shaping that avoids reward hacking, incorporation of knowledge graphs, and systematic hard-sample mining to uplift failure cases and long-tail coverage (Zhang et al., 27 Feb 2025, Liu et al., 18 Sep 2025).

7. Ethical, Regulatory, and Deployment Considerations

Medical RL faces significant non-technical obstacles:

• Reward Misspecification: Risks of perverse incentives or unintended consequences due to poorly designed surrogate endpoints; mitigated by human-in-the-loop oversight and inverse RL (Riachi et al., 2021, Perera et al., 28 Aug 2025).
• Generalizability and Bias: Fairness and equity demands models robust to population shifts, underrepresented cohorts, and distribution changes. Federated learning and ongoing model auditing are avenues of mitigation (Zheng et al., 2023, Perera et al., 28 Aug 2025).
• Policy Deployment: Integration into EHR ecosystems, real-time/edge deployment, and regulatory compliance (e.g., demonstration of “shadow mode” equivalence with human policy) are under active exploration (Li et al., 2020, Perera et al., 28 Aug 2025).
• Interpretability and Trust: Auditable, explainable RL models—with explicit reasoning traces, uncertainty estimates, and fallback mechanisms—are necessary for clinician acceptance and safe clinical use (Festor et al., 2021, Liu et al., 18 Sep 2025).

---

Medical-oriented reinforcement learning constitutes a rapidly evolving field, integrating classical RL with domain expertise, advanced architectures, and rigorous validation strategies to address the unique challenges of clinical decision making. Current and future systems are expected to achieve expert-level reasoning, robust generalization, and human-aligned agentive intelligence for high-stakes healthcare environments, provided ongoing attention is paid to interpretability, safety, and collaboration with clinical stakeholders.