Organizations: College of Computer Science, Chongqing University · College of Computer Science, Hunan University · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales · Institute of Advanced Intelligence and Computing (IAIC), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore · AI Labs, Unisound · Psycharity, Chongqing Medical University · Technological Information, Chongqing Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Diagnostic consultation is an online sequential decision-making process in which clinicians gather evidence through patient interaction until a diagnosis is sufficiently supported. Automating this process requires adaptive inquiry and interpretable decisions. Bayesian networks offer a natural foundation by updating diagnostic posteriors as evidence accumulates, but their use in open-ended consultation raises two challenges: linking diagnostic hypotheses to potential inquiries and translating evolving posteriors into consultation decisions. We introduce AutoDisym, an automated pipeline that integrates diagnostic knowledge with heterogeneous diagnosis-labeled clinical narratives to construct a Disorder--Symptom Bayesian Network (DSBN). Building on the DSBN, we propose ConsultMind, an uncertainty-aware framework that updates disorder posteriors after each response and uses posterior uncertainty to guide inquiry and diagnosis. We evaluate both methods across psychiatry, respiratory medicine, fever clinics, and three public datasets. The results show that AutoDisym can automatically construct high-quality DSBNs and that ConsultMind consistently improves diagnostic performance and explanation soundness. For example, AutoDisym achieves macro-averaged F1 scores of 81.37 for canonical symptoms and 72.19 for manifestations using GPT-5.6-Sol. ConsultMind improves Top-1 and Top-3 diagnostic accuracy by up to 22.15 and 37.89 percentage points, respectively. Physician evaluation further shows that ConsultMind improves the quality of ranking explanations, differential diagnoses, and diagnosis rationales across LLMs of different scales. This work offers a promising approach to automatic diagnostic consultation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of automated diagnostic consultation methods. Protocol- and LLM-driven systems suffer from rigid inquiry and opaque decisions, respectively, whereas ConsultMind enables adaptive and interpretable consultation through uncertainty-aware reasoning.
Figure 2: Overview of AutoDisym . An automated pipeline that constructs Disorder–Symptom Bayesian Networks (DSBN) from diagnostic knowledge and clinical narratives.
Figure 3: Automated Diagnostic Consultation via ConsultMind . It grounds patient responses into canonical symptom states, updates diagnostic posteriors through the DSBN, and uses posterior uncertainty to guide inquiries until reaching a diagnosis.
Psychiatry
Respiratory Medicine
Fever Clinic
Configuration
Top-1 ↑
Top-3 ↑
MRR ↑
Top-1 ↑
Top-3 ↑
MRR ↑
Top-1 ↑
Top-3 ↑
MRR ↑
Qwen3-8B
Direct
21.05%
35.79%
0.279
17.42%
31.64%
0.255
14.26%
26.91%
0.222
w/ RAG
28.31% +7.26
51.11% +15.32
0.383 +0.104
22.27% +4.85
42.56% +10.92
0.328 +0.073
19.01% +4.75
36.38% +9.47
0.284 +0.062
w/ ConsultMind
41.80% +20.75
69.84% +34.05
0.538 +0.259
31.28% +13.86
55.91% +24.27
0.438 +0.183
27.84% +13.58
47.95% +21.04
0.376 +0.154
Llama-3.1-8B
Table 1: Comparison of LLMs under direct diagnosis, diagnostic-criteria RAG, and ConsultMind across clinical specialties. Top- k denotes diagnostic accuracy; MRR is the mean reciprocal rank of the correct diagnosis.
Base Model
Cov. ↑
Prec. ↑
Halluc. ↓
QwQ-32B
72.40
86.10
7.80
w/ Auditor
88.91 (+16.51)
93.27 (+7.17)
3.08 (−4.72)
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
76.85
88.74
6.42
w/ Auditor
90.32 (+13.47)
94.15 (+5.41)
2.61 (−3.81)
GPT-5.5
82.36
91.52
4.63
w/ Auditor
92.18 (+9.82)
95.06 (+3.54)
1.94 (−2.69)
Table 2: Projected VSP reliability with and without auditing.
Figure 4: Comparison of ConsultMind with medical LLMs.
Model
Top-1 ↑
Top-3 ↑
MRR ↑
MentalHospital Psychiatry
Llama-3.1-8B
16.77%
34.19%
0.249
w/ ConsultMind
33.55% +16.78
51.61% +17.42
0.430 +0.181
Qwen3-32B
27.74%
35.81%
0.325
w/ ConsultMind
40.65% +12.91
60.32% +24.51
0.512 +0.187
GPT-5.6-Sol
29.03%
34.19%
0.329
Table 3: Diagnostic performance of LLMs with and without ConsultMind across datasets.
Figure 5: Physician ratings of diagnostic explanation quality.