Agentic clinical reasoning over longitudinal myeloma records: a retrospective evaluation against expert consensus
Authors: Johannes Moll, Jannik Lübberstedt, Christoph Nuernbergk, Jacob Stroh, Luisa Mertens, Anna Purcarea, Christopher Zirn, Zeineb Benchaaben, +16 more
Abstract
Multiple myeloma is managed through sequential lines of therapy over years to decades, with each decision depending on cumulative disease history distributed across dozens to hundreds of heterogeneous clinical documents. Whether LLM-based systems can synthesise this evidence at a level approaching expert agreement has not been established. A retrospective evaluation was conducted on longitudinal clinical records of 811 myeloma patients treated at a tertiary centre (2001-2026), covering 44,962 documents and 1,334,677 laboratory values, with external validation on MIMIC-IV. An agentic reasoning system was compared against single-pass retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), iterative RAG, and full-context input on 469 patient-question pairs from 48 templates at three complexity levels. Reference labels came from double annotation by four oncologists with senior haematologist adjudication. Iterative RAG and full-context input converged on a shared ceiling (75.4% vs 75.8%, p = 1.00). The agentic system reached 79.6% concordance (95% CI 76.4-82.8), exceeding both baselines (+3.8 and +4.2 pp; p = 0.006 and 0.007). Gains rose with question complexity, reaching +9.4 pp on criteria-based synthesis (p = 0.032), and with record length, reaching +13.5 pp in the top decile (n = 10). The system error rate (12.2%) was comparable to expert disagreement (13.6%), but severity was inverted: 57.8% of system errors were clinically significant versus 18.8% of expert disagreements. Agentic reasoning was the only approach to exceed the shared ceiling, with gains concentrated on the most complex questions and longest records. The greater clinical consequence of residual system errors indicates that prospective evaluation in routine care is required before these findings translate into patient benefit.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for clinical decision support, but their reliability in complex oncology treatment planning remains unclear. We evaluated agentic LLM systems for breast cancer treatment recommendation generation using 72 real clinical cases across stages I to IV and 1,147 case-specific rubrics generated through Asymmetric Information Rubric Generation (AIRG), in which the rubric generator had access to real clinical decisions unavailable to the evaluated models. Seven pipelines were compared, including single-LLM baselines, tool-augmented systems, and multi-agent architectures with fact checking and autonomous subagent spawning. The best-performing configuration, Claude Opus 4.8 with the D&C+SA pipeline, achieved a global score of 0.594 ± 0.025. Tool use and increased agent autonomy had mixed effects, improving performance in some settings but degrading it in others. Performance varied by clinical domain and disease stage, and oncologist-led error analysis revealed persistent clinically relevant failures, including incorrect or missing recommendations, flawed justifications, citation errors, outdated claims, and overconfidence. These findings suggest that agentic LLM systems can generate clinically relevant breast cancer recommendations, but remain insufficient for unsupervised clinical use.
Vinicius Anjos de Almeida, Nícolas Henrique Borges, Leonardo Vicenzi +5
Large language models achieve high scores on medical knowledge assessments, yet clinical reasoning requires actively deciding what to investigate under uncertainty. We developed an agentic evaluation framework in hematologic oncology in which models must proactively request clinical data across three sequential rounds before committing to a diagnosis and treatment plan. Across 32 frontier models, the best achieved only 68% overall accuracy. Information utilization, the fraction of available data actually requested, was the strongest predictor of diagnostic accuracy (R = 0.69, P < 0.001), yet utilization collapsed from 57% to 26% in the final round, leaving molecular and cytogenetic data critical for treatment selection unexamined. Reasoning traces scored high on a clinical reasoning rubric (91% above threshold) but decorrelated from accuracy, revealing a gap between locally coherent rationales and globally correct conclusions. Error analysis identified search satisficing, anchoring and premature closure as the dominant failure modes, the same cognitive biases that characterize novice clinicians under dual-process models of diagnostic reasoning. These findings demonstrate that the primary limitation of current models in clinical oncology is not insufficient medical knowledge but a systematic failure of information-seeking under uncertainty.
Krischan Braitsch, Laura K. Schmalbrock, Theresa Weltermann +11
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.