Endoscopic diagnosis is an iterative process in which clinicians acquire, compare, and verify local visual evidence before reaching a conclusion. Current AI systems do not adequately support this process because fine-grained evidence acquisition and multi-step reasoning remain weakly coupled, complicating reconciliation of image-derived findings with their textual interpretations. This gives rise to two failure modes, hallucinated evidence and uncorrected error accumulation, that undermine diagnostic reliability. We propose EndoCogniAgent, a closed-loop agentic framework that formulates endoscopic diagnosis as a controlled state update process for integrating complementary visual and textual evidence. At each reasoning round, a central planner selects an evidence acquisition action, specialized expert tools extract spatial and semantic observations as structured textual evidence, and a self-consistency validation mechanism examines this evidence along two dimensions, knowledge consistency against the input image and temporal consistency with prior validated findings, before updating the diagnostic state. Validated observations are admitted into the evolving state to condition subsequent planning, while insufficiently supported or conflicting findings are retained with corrective feedback that redirects the planner toward additional verification. We further introduce EndoAgentBench, a workflow-oriented benchmark comprising 6,132 question-answer pairs from 11 endoscopic datasets, to evaluate diagnostic agents across a comprehensive diagnostic chain, from fine-grained visual perception to high-level diagnostic reasoning. EndoCogniAgent achieves 85.23% overall accuracy on perception tasks and 71.13% clinical acceptance rate on reasoning tasks. Blinded clinician evaluation further shows consistent improvements in diagnostic response quality over the evaluated baselines.
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in medical image analysis. However, their application in gastrointestinal endoscopy is currently hindered by two critical limitations: the misalignment between general model reasoning and standardized clinical cognitive pathways, and the lack of causal association between visual features and diagnostic outcomes. In this paper, we propose a novel Clinical-Cognitive-Aligned (CogAlign) framework to address these challenges. First, we endow the model with rigorous clinical analytical capabilities by constructing the hierarchical clinical cognition dataset and employing Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT). Unlike conventional approaches, this strategy internalizes the hierarchical diagnostic logic of experts, ranging from anatomical localization and morphological evaluation to microvascular analysis, directly into the model. Second, to eliminate visual bias, we provide a theoretical analysis demonstrating that standard supervised tuning inevitably converges to spurious background correlations. Guided by this insight, we propose a counterfactual-driven reinforcement learning strategy to enforce causal rectification. By generating counterfactual normal samples via lesion masking and optimizing through clinical-cognition-centric rewards, we constrain the model to strictly ground its diagnosis in causal lesion features. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach achieves State-of-the-Art (SoTA) performance across multiple benchmarks, significantly enhancing diagnostic accuracy in complex clinical scenarios.
Medical visual agents can use tools to inspect images and retrieve external knowledge, but indiscriminate tool use may introduce noisy or misleading evidence. Reliable diagnosis therefore requires not only acquiring additional observations, but also verifying whether tool actions are necessary and whether the resulting evidence supports the current hypothesis. We introduce MIRA (Medical Image Reflection for Agentic Diagnosis), a medical visual diagnostic framework for autonomous evidence search and reflective verification. MIRA dynamically invokes image-processing operations, including zooming, grounding, pointing, rotation, and measurement, as well as web search, while evaluating the relevance and consistency of the acquired evidence. We develop MIRA through a two-stage training strategy. First, a tool-augmented Monte Carlo Tree Search data engine explores diverse diagnostic hypotheses and jointly verifies visual grounding accuracy and semantic consistency to construct supervised fine-tuning trajectories. Second, reinforcement learning further improves decision-making through online reflective principle evolution: failure cases are distilled into candidate principles, and only principles that improve held-out rollout rewards are retained. Across nine medical visual reasoning benchmarks, MIRA achieves an average score of 64.73, improving its Qwen3-VL-8B backbone by 7.44 points. It also increases useful tool-use judgments from 56.2% to 73.8% and reduces harmful judgments from 8.9% to 1.6%. Qualitative analyses show that MIRA can re-examine evidence, correct premature conclusions, and adapt its tool-use strategy. Project page: https://MIRA-VL.github.io/
Clinical diagnosis is a gradual process of evidence integration, in which physicians move from symptoms and medical history to examinations, competing hypotheses, disease relations, and treatment decisions. Large language models have advanced medical text understanding and generation. Yet their clinical use remains limited by weak evidence grounding, opaque reasoning, and inconsistent links among differential diagnosis, final diagnosis, diagnostic basis, and treatment planning. We introduce MedCollab, a multi-agent framework for full-cycle clinical diagnosis and report generation. MedCollab coordinates specialist and examination agents according to patient records. It structures agent deliberation with an Issue-Based Information System (IBIS) protocol, so that each diagnostic position is supported by patient-specific evidence and medical knowledge. It also builds Hierarchical Disease Relation Chains (HDRC) to connect accepted hypotheses through progression, complication, and comorbidity relations. During multi-round deliberation, a verifier-guided consensus module evaluates evidence support, medical plausibility, and logical conflicts. It then adjusts agent contributions and filters unsupported reasoning. Experiments on ClinicalBench and MIMIC-IV show that MedCollab outperforms leading LLMs and medical multi-agent baselines in diagnostic accuracy, evidence consistency, and clinical reasoning quality. These results indicate that structured and auditable collaboration can produce more faithful and clinically coherent diagnostic reports.