SkinAgent AI: A Safety-Grounded Multimodal Agentic Framework for Non-Diagnostic Skincare Support

Dermatological diagnosis requires integrating fine-grained visual perception with expert clinical knowledge. Although Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) facilitate interactive medical image analysis, their application in dermatology is hindered by insufficient domain-specific grounding and hallucinations. To address these issues, we propose DermAgent, a collaborative multi-tool agent that orchestrates seven specialized vision and language modules within a Plan-Execute-Reflect framework. DermAgent delivers stepwise, traceable diagnostic reasoning through three core components. First, it employs complementary visual perception tools for comprehensive morphological description, dermoscopic concept annotation, and disease diagnosis. Second, to overcome the lack of domain prior, a dual-modality retrieval module anchors every prediction in external evidence by cross-referencing 413,210 diagnosed image cases and 3,199 clinical guideline chunks. To further mitigate hallucinations, a deterministic critic module conducts strict post-hoc auditing via confidence, coverage, and conflict gates, automatically detecting inter-source disagreements to trigger targeted self-correction. Extensive experiments on five dermatology benchmarks demonstrate that DermAgent consistently outperforms state-of-the-art MLLMs and medical agent baselines across zero-shot fine-grained disease diagnosis, concept annotation, and clinical captioning tasks, exceeding GPT-4o by 17.6% in skin disease diagnostic accuracy and 3.15% in captioning ROUGE-L. Our code is available at https://github.com/YizeezLiu/DermAgent.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has advanced at a rapid pace in recent years. Initially, breakthroughs in large language models caught widespread attention. However, recent generations of frontier AI models have adopted multimodal capabilities as a first class citizen, with vision capabilities being central to that. In this paper, we evaluate three recently released models on the task of diagnosing dermatological conditions from patient-submitted images. The models chosen are at the low to mid tier in terms of pricing and thus represent a floor on current AI capabilities, not a ceiling. We evaluate AI performance relative to a panel of three certified dermatologists, who grade each image, and we present four interesting findings. Firstly, depending on the metric, the tested AI models are either on par or slightly trail humans in terms of inter-clinician agreement. Secondly, we find that asking AI models for a confidence rating produces poorly calibrated answers, meaning use of confidence thresholds should not be relied upon in a clinical setting. Thirdly, the effect of providing additional patient metadata is strongly model-specific, with one of the three models degrading on every metric considered. Finally, model cost is not predictive of performance. The best-performing model we tested costs on average $0.0045 per case.

Health AI is evolving from answering questions to agentic systems that converse with patients, reason about health records, and act on their behalf. Primary care guards against diagnostic errors and unsafe care; agents assisting in this domain warrant evaluation against the same risks. Current benchmarks focus on medical knowledge, assessed through isolated question-answering or clinician-facing tasks. PatientAgentBench benchmarks patient-facing agentic healthcare; it evaluates a foundation model, wrapped in an agent with a sandbox of healthcare tools, conversing with a simulated patient. Each conversation is scored by an LLM-as-a-Jury across six dimensions via over a hundred conversation-agnostic, clinician-grounded criteria. To validate alignment, licensed clinicians annotated shared conversations, yielding 79-93% adjacent agreement between jury and expert raters, on par with or exceeding clinician inter-rater agreement. We benchmarked 10 models across four families on the same 1,200 scenarios and found clinical gaps. Triage quality is the most discriminating dimension: pass rates rise from 32% for the weakest models to 88% for the strongest, with agents often acting on administrative requests without clinical screening. Clinical safety and workflow accuracy follow the same pattern: the weakest models fail often, fabricating unexecuted actions, while frontier models fail on only 1-3% of cases, from unverified tool outputs and omitted crisis resources in an emergency. More capable models narrow these gaps but do not close them; the strongest scores only 4.25 of 5 overall. These failures surface only in sustained, tool-using conversations against realistic patient records, confirming that static benchmarks are insufficient as healthcare agentic systems gain autonomy. We release the framework as a reproducible, clinician-validated evaluation standard to help the field close this gap.