Organizations: Biological and Life Sciences Division, MBZUAI, UAE · Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, UK · OATML, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, UK · Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK
Clinical diagnosis relies on consistent multimodal data collected from the same patient throughout the disease course, yet such data are difficult to acquire at scale because of collection costs, missing modalities, fragmented systems, and longitudinal follow-ups. Existing synthetic-data approaches largely focus on individual modalities or vision-language dual modalities at report-level generation. Little work has been done to construct synthetic data with consistent patient backgrounds, coherent disease trajectories, and interrelated modality-specific evidence at a complete clinical case level. We introduce CaseWeaver, a multi-agent framework built around a timeline-anchored Latent Clinical Case Graph (LCCG). The LCCG organizes patient context, latent disease states, clinical events, and expected observations in a shared patient-level representation. Modality-agents use scoped observation subgraphs and clinical protocols to generate evidence including clinical records, laboratory results, physiological signals, and medical images. We evaluate clinical inferability using a calibrated AgentClinic protocol and case diversity using Virtual Case Diversity (VCD) score. CaseWeaver outperformed general-model and agentic-workflow baselines on both metrics, producing more diverse and coherent multimodal virtual clinical cases.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of CaseWeaver. (a) Construction of a target-disease-specific LCCG. (b) Generation of multimodal evidence by modality-specific agents. (c) Example of a multimodal virtual clinical case.
Figure 2: Protocol-driven multimodal evidence rendering. The Imaging Agent–Angiography Tool workflow is shown as an example. The tool selects the target coronary anatomy according to task requirements and applies the LCA_LAO_CAUDAL (LAO 40∘ , CAUDAL 30∘ ) and RCA_LAO_CRANIAL (LAO 40∘ , CRANIAL 20∘ ) acquisition protocols.
Figure 3: (a) Empirical cumulative distributions of CII, information coverage C , and the diagnostic success–coverage gap G in the calibration and validation sets; red dashed lines denote the calibration thresholds or reference interval. (b) Joint distribution of the diagnostic success rate S and information coverage C .
Method
Clinical Inferability
VCD
S↑
C↑
CII ↑
G
MI ↑
Diabetes ↑
Colorectal ↑
Average ↑
gpt-5.6-terra
0.828
0.787
0.803
0.041
0.210
0.215
0.369
0.265
gemini-3.5-flash
0.822
0.789
0.796
0.032
0.250
0.390
0.265
0.302
OpenAI Agents SDK (gpt-5.6-terra)
0.752
0.821
0.769
−0.069
0.262
0.283
0.370
0.305
Google ADK (gemini-3.5-flash)
0.805
0.780
0.783
0.025
0.300
0.432
0.324
0.352
CaseWeaver
0.930
0.803
0.860
0.127
0.547
0.620
0.686
0.618
Table 1: Comparison of clinical inferability and VCD across virtual case generation methods.