Cerebra: A Multidisciplinary AI Board for Multimodal Dementia Characterization and Risk Assessment
Authors: Sheng Liu, Long Chen, Zeyun Zhao, Qinglin Gou, Qingyue Wei, Arjun Masurkar, Kevin M. Spiegler, Philip Kuball, +11 more
Organizations: Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University · Department of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University · Center for Data Science, New York University · J. Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida · Department of Biomedical Engineering and Informatics, Indiana University Indianapolis · Department of Neurology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine · Department of Neuroscience, NYU Grossman School of Medicine · UF Health Family Medicine – Haile Plantation · Department of Family Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine · Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Indiana University School of Medicine · Center for Biomedical Informatics, Regenstrief Institute · Scripps Research Translational Institute · Courant Institute, New York University · Center for Cognitive Aging and Memory, McKnight Brain Institute, University of Florida · Population Health Department, NYU Langone Health · Radiology Department, NYU Langone Health
Modern clinical practice increasingly depends on reasoning over heterogeneous, evolving, and incomplete patient data. Although recent advances in multimodal foundation models have improved performance on various clinical tasks, most existing models remain static, opaque, and poorly aligned with real-world clinical workflows. We present Cerebra, an interactive multi-agent AI team that coordinates specialized agents for EHR, clinical notes, and medical imaging analysis. These outputs are synthesized into a clinician-facing dashboard that combines visual analytics with a conversational interface, enabling clinicians to interrogate predictions and contextualize risk at the point of care. Cerebra supports privacy-preserving deployment by operating on structured representations and remains robust when modalities are incomplete. We evaluated Cerebra using a massive multi-institutional dataset spanning 3 million patients from four independent healthcare systems. Cerebra consistently outperformed both state-of-the-art single-modality models and large multimodal language model baselines. In dementia risk prediction, it achieved AUROCs up to 0.80, compared with 0.74 for the strongest single-modality model and 0.68 for language model baselines. For dementia diagnosis, it achieved an AUROC of 0.86, and for survival prediction, a C-index of 0.81. In a reader study with experienced physicians, Cerebra significantly improved expert performance, increasing accuracy by 17.5 percentage points in prospective dementia risk estimation. These results demonstrate Cerebra's potential for interpretable, robust decision support in clinical care.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the CEREBRA agentic AI system for clinical decision support. a. Clinicians interact with CEREBRA through an interactive dashboard that accepts queries and feedback. Modality-specific agents analyze patient data and participate in a structured multi-agent discussion coordinated by a summary agent to produce a final conclusion. b. A super agent moderates the data agent and modality agents. c–e. Modality agents operating under an independent workflow, training models, and producing modality-specific evidence and results. f. The summary agent performs a multi-agent discussion in a propose-and-critique style. g. Multi-institutional data integration and cohort construction. h. CEREBRA supports various clinical tasks, including risk prediction, survival analysis, diagnostic assistance with human-in-the-loop.
Figure 2: Dementia risk prediction performance of CEREBRA . a. Dementia risk prediction on the NYU cohort for prediction horizons of 1, 2, and 3 years. Performance is measured using AUROC (left) and AUPRC (right), comparing CEREBRA with MedGemma, GPT-4o, and GPT-5 baselines. b. External validation across independent healthcare systems (NYU Langone Hospital - Long Island, Indiana University, and University of Florida). Heatmaps show AUROC and AUPRC for 1-, 2-, and 3-year prediction tasks, with cohort statistics shown below; rows labeled 1 and 0 denote the number of positive (dementia diagnosis onset) and negative (no dementia diagnosis) samples, respectively. c. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis stratified by CEREBRA -predicted risk groups (top and bottom 25%). d. C-index from Cox proportional hazards modeling performed by CEREBRA across modalities (EHR, clinical notes, imaging) and their multimodal combination. Error bars indicate uncertainty estimated via bootstrap resampling of the test set (1,000 replicates); error bars indicate ± 1 standard deviation for AUROC and AUPRC.
Category Label
Acronym
Description
NC
NC
Normal cognition
MCI
MCI
Mild cognitive impairment
AD/ADRD
AD
Alzheimer’s disease
LBD
Lewy body dementia, including dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson’s disease dementia
VD
Vascular dementia, vascular brain injury and vascular dementia, including stroke
FTD
Frontotemporal lobar degeneration and its variants, including primary progressive, aphasia, corticobasal degeneration and progressive supranuclear palsy, and with or without amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
Table 1: Glossary related to cognitive conditions
Figure 3: Dementia diagnosis performance of CEREBRA in NYU cohort . a-b. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and Precision–recall curves for dementia diagnosis on the NYU cohort, comparing CEREBRA with MedGemma, GPT-4o, and GPT-5. c-d. Performance stratified by sex, shown using the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision–recall curve (AUPRC). e-f. Performance stratified by dementia subtype (Alzheimer’s disease, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, and others), shown using AUROC and AUPRC. Each dot denotes one bootstrap estimate of model performance ( n=100 resamples); boxplots summarize the distribution of these bootstrap estimates.
Figure 4: Evaluation of multimodal fusion and missing-modality robustness in CEREBRA . a. Multimodal inputs used by CEREBRA , including structured EHR data, clinical notes, and medical images (OCT and brain MRI), with the number of samples available for each modality. b–c. Risk prediction (3 Year) performance comparing heuristic fusion methods based on minimum (lowest-risk), maximum (highest-risk), and average risk scores with agentic equal discussion and propose-and-critique style discussion. d. Correlation between modality agents’ risk scores, showing complementary (non-redundant) risk assessments across image, EHR, and note agents. e. Performance of CEREBRA on the NYU cohort with missing modalities.
Figure 5: Feedback loop and reasoning evidence analysis. a. Demonstration of summary agent pipeline with the dynamic medical notebook. Summary agent collects outputs from modality agents for a multi-agent discussion, while the aggregated risk score is properly calibrated with the prior feedback provided by clinicians in the dynamic medical notebook. b. Performance in AUROC on dementia prediction task improves with increasing number of automatically generated feedback from erroneous predictions. c. CEREBRA ’s reasoning achieves significantly better agreement with reference clinical notes than GPT-4o. d. Qualitative analysis on the most frequent positive keywords across time in CEREBRA reasoning. Different time horizons manifest differential clinical evidence characteristics, as well as diversified medical keywords.
Figure 6: Clinician reader study evaluating CEREBRA . a. Example dashboard interface summarizing predicted 3-year dementia risk, extracted risk factors, supporting evidence and suggested actions. b. Aggregate performance of clinician risk assessments with versus without dashboard assistance (accuracy, sensitivity and specificity; six clinicians; 40 cases per clinician; 20 per condition; n=120 case reads per condition). Percent-point changes are annotated. c. Self-reported confidence distribution (low, moderate, high) with versus without dashboard assistance ( n=120 per condition). d. Clinician’s performance (sensitivity) stratified by predicted diagnostic category across major dementia etiologies and an Others category. e. Clinician evaluation of dashboard content and utility for dashboard-assisted reads ( n=120 ): perceived accuracy and relevance of risk factors, accuracy and alignment of supporting evidence, and perceived helpfulness for understanding risk and easing decision-making.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
NYU
LI
UF
INPC
EHR
Note
Image
EHR
Note
Image
EHR
Note
Image
EHR
Note
Image
Initial Cohort
Patient
2M
521K
241K
306K
7208
2934
42K
43K
54K
163K
115K
-
Record
4B
22M
2M
40M
209K
16K
33M
363K
176K
300M
11M
-
Applying filter with inclusion Criteria
Filtered Cohort
Patient
53K
508
4369
37K
Record
369M
1M
139K
3M
11k
3,349
6M
96K
29K
158M
5M
-
Appendix
Supplementary Table 1 : Number of patients and records per modality across institutions, before and after applying inclusion criteria filtering.
Institution (group)
Age (y), mean ± s.d.
Male, n(%)
Race (White, Black, Asian, Pacific, multirace, unknown), n
NYU
NC [n=42289]
75.60 ± 7.73
17104 (40.45%)
(26707, 3960, 1804, 76, 4219, 5523)
AD [n=5588]
82.03 ± 7.98
2486 (44.49%)
(3842, 415, 246, 16, 558, 511)
VD [n=1336]
82.96 ± 8.28
594 (44.46%)
(834, 165, 71, 5, 149, 112)
LBD [n=3588]
79.12 ± 7.96
1703 (47.46%)
(2551, 268, 127, 10, 337, 295)
FTD [n=970]
79.75 ± 7.78
548 (56.49%)
(705, 54, 37, 0, 75, 99)
Appendix
Supplementary Table 2 : Study population by institution and diagnostic group with dementia subtypes. Data were drawn from three health systems, including NYU, LI, UF, and INPC (accessed through the Regenstrief Institute). Diagnostic group acronyms are defined in Table 1 .
Supplementary Figure 1 : Dataset curation details. (a) Diagnosis Dataset by Backtracking. Positive: the first positive visit date is the end date of observation window; Negative: randomly select a visit date as the end date of observation window. (b) Time-to-Event Survival Analysis, indexed by MRI Scan Visits. Positive: find the time from MRI scan visits to the first positive diagnosis; Negative: find the time from MRI scan visits to the end of record. (c)Prediction dataset by rolling window. Positive: There is meaningful new data within the observation window, and there is no data leakage; otherwise Negative .
Condition
Criteria (ICD-10 codes and Medications)
AD/ADRD
F01.*: Any vascular dementia
F02.*: Dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere with or without behavioral disturbance
Supplementary Table 5 : Modality agent’s performance of dementia prediction task with EHR, notes and images respectively across NYU, LI, INPC, and UF. The 1/2/3-year horizons indicate whether, based on the available historical data, an individual will be labeled as developing dementia in the coming 1/2/3 years (label window) after 6 months prediction window. For each dataset, positive/negative (P/N) sample ratio and positive rate are also reported. Image modality results for the INPC cohort is not reported because the dataset does not contain imaging data. For NYU, we also benchmarked image agent performance using VoCo as deep learning approach. Best AUROC and AUPRC for each time horizon at each site are highlighted.
Institution
Modality
AUROC
AUPRC
P/N samples
Positive rate (%)
NYU
EHR
82.1
38.9
239/2177
9.89
Notes
80.5
34.2
Images
71.4
24.4
CEREBRA
84.6
41.4
LI
EHR
77.6
14.3
59/1211
4.65
Notes
72.1
14.3
Appendix
Supplementary Table 6 : Performance of dementia diagnosis task across four sites for each modality, compared with CEREBRA performance. For LI, evaluation is performed using the models trained with NYU data, showcasing the generalization on an external evaluation dataset without retraining. Best AUROC and AUPRC for each time horizon are highlighted.
Modality
Model
Metric
1-year
2-year
3-year
EHR
GPT-OSS-120B
AUROC
56.13
56.77
56.62
AUPRC
15.35
24.44
37.52
CEREBRA
AUROC
62.34
64.53
66.81
AUPRC
20.65
31.23
50.35
Note
GPT-OSS-120B
AUROC
62.42
63.17
64.61
AUPRC
18.31
32.45
44.93
Appendix
Supplementary Table 7 : Performance of MCI to ADRD conversion risk prediction task across different time horizons in the INPC cohort for each modality, compared with CEREBRA (using GPT-OSS-120B as the backbone) performance. Best AUROC and AUPRC for each time horizon are highlighted.
Modality
Model
Metric
diagnosis
1-year
2-year
3-year
EHR
MedGemma
AUROC
61.2
44.1
53.6
53.8
AUPRC
13.8
4.6
4.3
6.1
GPT-4o
AUROC
73.2
60.4
60.6
63.1
AUPRC
18.3
3.7
6.0
8.1
GPT-5
AUROC
74.6
60.9
62.9
62.7
AUPRC
18.5
3.7
6.5
8.0
Appendix
Supplementary Table 8 : LLM baseline results on the NYU cohort for dementia diagnosis and prediction among cognitively normal patients at 1-, 2-, and 3-year horizons. For each modality and task, the best-performing result is highlighted in bold.
Modality
Model
C-index
EHR
MedGemma
50.0
GPT-4o
64.9
GPT-5
63.1
CEREBRA
78.2
Note
MedGemma
53.6
GPT-4o
58.0
Appendix
Supplementary Table 9 : LLM baseline results on time-to-event survival analysis on the NYU cohort. For each modality, the best-performing result is highlighted in bold.
Supplementary Figure 2 : Top features extracted by modality agents for 3-year normal cognition to dementia prediction task. These features are determined by respective modality agents to have positively contributed to dementia.
Supplementary Figure 3 : Interactive interface of CEREBRA . Cerebra provides a conversational interface in the dashboard that enables clinicians to interact with CEREBRA , exploring the reasoning behind the decision and providing feedback to guide the system.
Dementia diagnosis requires integrating multi-modal clinical assessments from diverse informants and clinicians under incomplete and heterogeneous data conditions. Yet most AI-driven approaches remain Alzheimer's disease (AD)-centric, framing the problem as binary AD detection or three-stage AD progression modeling within well-curated research settings. This pathology-driven paradigm overlooks the broader, syndrome-level nature of dementia, which spans multiple stages, phenotypes, and etiologies. In this paper, we propose Dementia-Agents, a clinically aligned multi-agent framework for real-world dementia staging and phenotyping. The framework follows a three-step workflow: (1) a data agent translates structured clinical records into semantically faithful textual representations that preserve missing-data signals and routes them to domain-aligned experts; (2) five fine-tuned expert agents generate domain-level predictions; and (3) a coordinator agent performs probabilistic aggregation to produce final staging and phenotyping decisions. We develop and evaluate Dementia-Agents on a real-world clinical cohort of 1,066 patients from two cognitive neurology services. Compared with monolithic multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) and prior medical multi-agent systems, our approach achieves consistent improvements in diagnostic performance for real-world syndrome-level dementia staging and phenotyping, while preserving domain-level interpretability.
Yaling Shen, Maja Christensen, Yiwen Jiang +4
Monash University · Eastern Health · Lived Experience Advisor
Although artificial intelligence (AI) has shown promising performance in several medical tasks, accurate dementia etiology diagnosis with AI remains challenging due to complex overlapping symptoms among diseases. Scaling up the dataset size by combining the cross-center samples may bring a gain in the pursuit of performance, while the inherent data heterogeneity across centers or populations induces the conflict. Conventional multi-task learning paradigms offer a promising framework; however, they fail to consider critical meta information (e.g., site-specific acquisition and modality availability) to combat the heterogeneity. To address this challenge, we propose a Collaborative Meta Knowledge Enhancement (COME) framework for dementia etiology diagnosis, which injects multi-center acquisition semantics, source identifiers, and modality indicators as heterogeneity-aware embeddings into a unified Transformer architecture for scale-up training, enabling explicit modeling of heterogeneity. Besides, a trust-region constrained optimization scheme is designed to regularize the model from spurious correlations during training through a reference model. Across seven independent cohorts, our method achieves state-of-the-art in-domain performance with a mean macro-averaged AUC of 85.62% and a 4.29-point gain over the strongest baseline, while maintaining superior out-of-domain generalization under both cross-center and cross-sequence evaluations. Extensive validation also confirms the alignment between model predictions and established biomarkers (amyloid, tau) and clinical severity, highlighting the potential of COME to enable robust and interpretable dementia diagnostics in real-world settings.
Siyuan Du, Mengxi Chen, Xinyang Jiang +6
School of Computer Science, Fudan University · Cooperative Medianet Innovation Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Microsoft Research Asia, Shanghai, China +1
Building effective clinical decision support systems requires the synthesis of complex heterogeneous multimodal data. Such modalities include temporal electronic health records data, medical images, radiology reports, and clinical notes. Large language model (LLM)-based agents have shown impressive performance in various healthcare tasks, especially those involving textual modalities. Considering the fragmentation of healthcare data across hospital systems, collaborative agent frameworks present a promising direction to mitigate data sharing challenges. However, the effectiveness of LLM agents for multimodal clinical risk prediction remains largely unexamined. In this work, we conduct a systematic evaluation of LLM-based agents for clinical prediction tasks using large-scale real-world data. We assess performance in unimodal and multimodal settings and quantify performance gaps between single agent and multi-agent systems. Our findings highlight that single agent frameworks outperform naive multi-agent systems, are better at handling multimodal data, and are better calibrated. This underscores a critical need for improving multi-agent collaboration to better handle heterogeneous inputs. By open-sourcing our code and evaluation framework, this work offers a new benchmark to support future developments relating to agentic systems in healthcare.