Agentic retrieval-augmented reasoning reshapes collective reliability under model variability in radiology question answering
Authors: Mina Farajiamiri, Jeta Sopa, Saba Afza, Lisa Adams, Felix Barajas Ordonez, Tri-Thien Nguyen, Mahshad Lotfinia, Sebastian Wind, Keno Bressem, Sven Nebelung, Daniel Truhn, Soroosh Tayebi Arasteh
Organizations: Lab for AI in Medicine, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. · Pattern Recognition Lab, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. · Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, TUM University Klinikum, School of Medicine and Health, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. · Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. · Institute of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. · Erlangen National High Performance Computing Center, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. · Department of Cardiovascular Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, TUM University Clinic, School of Medicine and Health, German Heart Center, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. · Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. · Department of Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Agentic retrieval-augmented reasoning pipelines are increasingly used to structure how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence in clinical decision support. These systems iteratively retrieve curated domain knowledge and synthesize it into structured reports before answer selection. Although such pipelines can improve performance, their impact on reliability under model variability remains unclear. In real-world deployment, heterogeneous models may align, diverge, or synchronize errors in ways not captured by accuracy. We evaluated 34 LLMs on 169 expert-curated publicly available radiology questions, comparing zero-shot inference with a radiology-specific multi-step agentic retrieval condition in which all models received identical structured evidence reports derived from curated radiology knowledge. Agentic inference reduced inter-model decision dispersion (median entropy 0.48 vs. 0.13) and increased robustness of correctness across models (mean 0.74 vs. 0.81). Majority consensus also increased overall (P<0.001). Consensus strength and robust correctness remained correlated under both strategies (\r{ho}=0.88 for zero-shot; \r{ho}=0.87 for agentic), although high agreement did not guarantee correctness. Response verbosity showed no meaningful association with correctness. Among 572 incorrect outputs, 72% were associated with moderate or high clinically assessed severity, although inter-rater agreement was low (\k{appa}=0.02). Agentic retrieval therefore was associated with more concentrated decision distributions, stronger consensus, and higher cross-model robustness of correctness. These findings suggest that evaluating agentic systems through accuracy or agreement alone may not always be sufficient, and that complementary analyses of stability, cross-model robustness, and potential clinical impact are needed to characterize reliability under model variability.
Large language model reliability studies whether outputs remain correct, calibrated, robust, and controllable across prompts, contexts, and deployment conditions.
Answering questions from radiology reports involves two decisions: whether the report contains an answer and which span gives it. A false answer presents an unsupported claim as fact; an over-abstention hides what the report says. Yet RadQA results are reported as a single F1 that merges both. We propose an evaluation method that separates them, reporting false-answer and over-abstention rates beside F1 and splitting F1 changes into extraction and answerability terms. We apply it to 13 LLMs on the RadQA test set, zero-shot and with three cumulative demonstration sets, the last adding an unanswerable example. Models with similar F1 differed more than twofold in false-answer rate. The unanswerable example changed when models answered, not how well they extracted: 12 of 13 models abstained more often, and three-quarters of the answers they withdrew had F1 ≥ 0.5. Within models, false answers showed no clear association with extraction quality, but acting on the decision itself helped: keeping an answer only when enough other models also answered lowered the zero-shot false-answer rate by 4 points without a detectable F1 change. Because the two decisions can change independently, we suggest radiology QA evaluations report them separately, not through F1 alone.
Radiology, with its heterogeneous modalities, anatomies, and evolving protocols, is a natural yet high-stakes testbed for agentic AI. As LLMs grow more capable and tool ecosystems such as MCP and Agent Skills more complex, their capability boundaries in radiology remain unclear. We introduce RadA-BenchPlat, a two-layer benchmark spanning idealized reasoning and real-world execution: a synthetic layer with 2.2k clinician-verified records, 24.2k QA pairs, and 10 tool categories under diverse availability settings; and a real-environment layer pairing 165 2D/3D cases with executable tools for grounding, diagnosis, and report generation. We find that high completion rates under idealized settings do not carry over to real environments, where the best agents trail their upper bound by approximately 15% and drop to 0.327 on long-chain tasks. Prompting strategies (few-shot exemplars, multi-agent coordination) and AutoTB (on-the-fly synthesis of missing tools) mitigate execution drift and breakdowns in difficult scenarios, lifting execution success to 94.5%, yet remain not fully reliable. Overall, our findings suggest that radiology agents are no longer limited to conceptual demonstrations, but are beginning to show potential for real-world applications. Project repository: https://github.com/MAGIC-AI4Med/RadABench
Qiaoyu Zheng, Chaoyi Wu, Weike Zhao +5
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Department of Radiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
Current work on radiology report evaluation has focused primarily on LLM-based metrics for chest X-rays (CXR), leaving open whether such approaches remain robust across other modalities and anatomies, and which model and prompt configurations are best suited to serve as LLM judges. We present a comprehensive evaluation of LLM judges for radiology report evaluation across diverse model families, prompting strategies, and adaptation methods, leveraging two expert-annotated datasets that span multiple imaging modalities and anatomical regions. Specifically, we compare four existing metrics (RadFact, GREEN, FineRadScore, and CRIMSON) with our proposed metric, VERT, across open- and closed-source models of varying sizes and reasoning capabilities. Among existing metrics, GREEN proves the most robust, outperforming more recent CXR-specific approaches. VERT further improves Kendall's correlation with radiologist judgment by up to 26% over GREEN, while ensembling and lightweight fine-tuning of Qwen3-30B yield gains of up to 9.9% and 25%, respectively, of which the latter also has a latency reduction of 37.2x. A systematic error analysis further shows that, while these metrics correlate with expert ratings overall, they tend to miscount errors such as omissions. Overall, our results show that carefully selected general-purpose LLM judges provide strong radiology report evaluation across modalities, with lightweight adaptation offering complementary gains when annotated data is available.
Federica Bologna, Jean-Philippe Corbeil, Matthew Wilkens +1
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA · Microsoft Healthcare & Life Sciences, Montr´eal, QC, Canada · Cornell University, Ithaca, NY +1