ClinAgent is a conversational system that uses a ReAct-based LLM agent to retrieve and synthesize clinical trial information from multiple sources such as ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and a local dataset. The agent iteratively reasons over user queries, selects appropriate tools, and refines its actions to provide grounded, up-to-date responses in natural language across multi-turn interactions. Evaluation across three phases shows that DeepSeek (thinking mode) excels in planning quality while Gemini 3.0 Flash delivers the highest overall performance and expert ratings, demonstrating the promise of agentic AI for improving clinical trial data access.
By Antonino Vaccarella, Riccardo Cantini, Domenico Talia, Paolo Trunfio, Marianna Talia, Rosamaria Lappano, Marcello Maggiolini
arXiv:2609.15830v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve access to complex information; however, retrieving evidence alone does not ensure that answers are g...
By Sumit Barua, Guan Hong, Halil Dursunoglu, Charles Rodgers, Alvis Fong
arXiv:2609.36392v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: In diseases where clinical guidelines are incomplete, contested, or mutually contradictory, knowledge completeness and dynamic conflict-aware synthesis...
By Yuyan Chen
arXiv:2509. 02594v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate high-quality, accurate, situationally aware answers to clinical questions requires going beyond conventional benchmarks to assess how these systems behave in complex, high-stakes clinical scenarios.
By Sandhanakrishnan Ravichandran, Shivesh Kumar, Rogerio Corga Da Silva, Miguel Romano, Reinhard Berkels, Michiel van der Heijden, Olivier Fail, Valentine Emmanuel Gnanapragasam
arXiv:2608.22108v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings manage increasingly complex cases under considerable time pressure, and documentation requirements...
By Aarzoo Dhiman, Farzana Haque, Kartikae Grover, Lydia Brian Smith, William Stephen Jones
The study evaluates AI-generated summaries for cancer patients using a dual assessment framework that includes human experts and LLM-as-a-judge. Human domain experts—oncology clinicians and patient-facing care staff—assess summary quality on accuracy, clinical relevance, and readability. The research identifies limitations such as omissions and minor inaccuracies, which are then used to iteratively refine prompts, grounding, and safety guardrails.
By Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad, Kim Shyu, Leon Oliver, Fergus Sleight, Paul Landau