Thinking Like a Clinician: A Cognitive AI Agent for Clinical Diagnosis via Panoramic Profiling and Adversarial Debate

Diagnostic prediction and clinical reasoning are critical tasks in healthcare applications. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in commonsense reasoning, they still struggle with diagnostic reasoning due to limited domain knowledge. Existing approaches often rely on internal model knowledge or static knowledge bases, resulting in knowledge insufficiency and limited adaptability, which hinder their capacity to perform diagnostic reasoning. Moreover, these methods focus solely on the accuracy of final predictions, overlooking alignment with standard clinical reasoning trajectories. To this end, we propose MultiDx, a two-stage diagnostic reasoning framework that performs differential diagnosis by analyzing evidence collected from multiple knowledge sources. Specifically, it first generates suspected diagnoses and reasoning paths by leveraging knowledge from web search, SOAP-formatted case, and clinical case database. Then it integrates multi-perspective evidence through matching, voting, and differential diagnosis to generate the final prediction.~Extensive experiments on two public benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach.

Diagnostic error is a major threat to patient safety, yet current large language model (LLM) systems often treat diagnosis as a one-shot prediction task, lacking safeguards against missed high-risk alternatives or rigorous verification of their reasoning. Here, we present AegisDx, a safety-oriented framework for hypothetico-deductive clinical reasoning. AegisDx coordinates specialized LLM components through role-specific contracts, structured intermediate outputs, evidence-retrieval interfaces, and verification gates to generate broad differential diagnoses, enforce explicit screening for dangerous "must-not-miss" conditions, verify reasoning against grounded medical evidence, and structure actionable next steps. We evaluated AegisDx across three layers. On literature-derived case reports from NEJM and JAMA, with GPT-oss-120B as the shared backbone, Top-3 diagnostic accuracy was 59.9% versus 52.1% for the standalone LLM on JAMA cases and 62.7% versus 51.4% on NEJM cases. On cases from Annals of Emergency Medicine, Top-3 accuracy was 85.7% versus 68.6%; against physician-consensus must-not-miss diagnosis sets, AegisDx captured at least one such condition among its top three diagnoses in 78.0% of cases versus 52.0%. In a blinded physician evaluation of 43 real-world emergency department notes from the Yale New Haven Health System compared against GPT-5, AegisDx improved the physician-rated composite safety score from 4.31 to 4.55 on a 5-point scale (adjusted p = 2.1x10^-4), with qualitative gains in must-not-miss identification and reasoning safety. Our findings suggest that engineering diagnostic AI as a safety-oriented reasoning framework, rather than optimizing raw predictive accuracy alone, can provide a safer, more transparent, and clinically meaningful layer of bedside decision support for acute care workflows.

Recent reasoning-centric Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant strides, yet they predominantly operate on a passive-inference pattern that assumes complete information. In contrast, real-world clinical intelligence is inherently an iterative investigative process requiring strategic evidence acquisition. To bridge this gap, we formalize medical diagnosis as an Iterative Evidence-Seeking Task. We leverage Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) to elicit intrinsic reasoning within a closed-loop environment, guided by a novel suite of rewards that enforce diagnostic precision and examination consistency. To facilitate this, we introduce the Retrieval-Augmented Generation-based Examination Simulator (RAGES), a high-fidelity clinical oracle that provides realistic, knowledge-grounded follow-up evidence. Empirical results across diverse datasets demonstrate that our framework enables LLMs to transition from passive responders to autonomous assistants. Notably, our model demonstrates comparable performance to larger and reasoning-enhanced baselines, while RAGES proves superior to vanilla LLMs in generating biologically plausible clinical feedback.