The paper investigates how human interventions at specific fault points—moments when an AI agent’s reasoning is most vulnerable—affect the diagnostic accuracy of multi‑agent medical systems. Using the MedQA dataset, the authors found that correct interventions can boost baseline accuracy by up to 40%, whereas incorrect or bias‑related interventions can reduce performance by up to 6% and increase diagnostic drift and uncertainty. The study also highlights behavioral parallels between cognitive biases observed in simulated agent conversations and real‑world clinical practice, such as premature closure and susceptibility to misleading cues.
arXiv:2608. 11420v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Medical diagnostic reasoning is a high-impact use case for LLMs that carries significant implications for the health and wellbeing of users.
arXiv:2606. 30658v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical AI has shifted from reasoning to agentic AI, a new paradigm that autonomously invokes external tools during reasoning, rendering intermediate reasoning steps and tool outputs transparent to users.
arXiv:2607. 25485v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Health AI is evolving from answering questions to agentic systems that converse with patients, reason about health records, and act on their behalf.
arXiv:2603. 25821v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We present Doctorina MedBench, an evaluation framework for agent-based medical AI based on the simulation of physician-patient interactions.
arXiv:2603. 25821v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We present Doctorina MedBench, a comprehensive evaluation framework for agent-based medical AI based on the simulation of realistic physician-patient interactions.
arXiv:2512. 01241v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.
The paper introduces an adaptive memory and reflection (AMR) multi‑agent system for medical question answering. Each agent has dedicated memory and uses reflection‑based feedback to retrieve relevant prior cases, improving reasoning. The system routes questions through solo, collaborative, or escalated workflows and includes consensus and ethical overseer modules, achieving strong performance on MedQA and MedMCQA datasets.
The paper introduces MACD, a Multi-Agent Clinical Diagnosis framework that enables large language models to self‑learn clinical knowledge through a multi‑agent pipeline of summarization, refinement, and application. MACD is extended into a human‑AI collaborative workflow where multiple diagnostician agents consult iteratively, guided by a judge agent and human oversight. Evaluation on the MIMIC‑MACD cohort shows significant gains in diagnostic accuracy—an average 11.6 percentage‑point improvement over authoritative knowledge for open‑weight LLMs and an 18.3‑percentage‑point boost over physician‑only diagnosis in text‑only vignettes.
arXiv:2508. 07617v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI has the potential to augment human decision making.
arXiv:2601. 16529v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) deployed in clinical decision support may acquiesce to patient requests for care that conflicts with evidence-based guidelines.
arXiv:2606. 18068v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) and multi-agent systems have driven the rise of Agentic AI, showing promise for medical reasoning.
AI Morbidity and Mortality (AI M&M) is a structured, blameless framework designed to review clinical AI failures. It combines standardized case intake, evidence preservation, investigator reconstruction, tool‑in‑loop attribution, and corrective‑action tracking, classifying each event across four linked dimensions: Trigger, Mechanism, Clinical Pathway, and Corrective Action. The authors demonstrate the framework with five outpatient medication and clinical decision‑support cases, achieving full agreement among reviewers on all classification axes.