A Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Personalized Health Checkup Interpretation and Guidance

Personalized lifestyle health analysis requires long-horizon, multi-dimensional reasoning over heterogeneous lifestyle signals, and recent advances in mobile sensing and large language models (LLMs) make such support increasingly feasible. However, the capabilities of current LLMs in this setting remain insufficiently understood due to the lack of systematic benchmarks. In this paper, we introduce LifeAgentBench, a large-scale QA benchmark for long-horizon, cross-dimensional, and multi-user lifestyle health reasoning, containing 22,573 questions spanning from basic retrieval to complex reasoning. We release an extensible benchmark construction pipeline and a standardized evaluation protocol, deriving verifiable answers through executable queries and programs to support reliable assessment. We then systematically evaluate 13 representative LLMs on LifeAgentBench and identify key bottlenecks in long-horizon aggregation and cross-dimensional reasoning. Motivated by these findings, we propose LifeAgent, a tool-augmented reasoning baseline that decomposes complex queries, performs multi-step evidence retrieval, and invokes tools for deterministic aggregation. LifeAgent substantially enhances LLMs' capabilities on challenging reasoning tasks, achieving clear improvements over widely used baselines and showing potential for health reasoning in everyday scenarios. The benchmark is publicly available.

Wearable health questions often combine data retrieval, longitudinal analysis, and health advice over structured records. Prompting a single large language model with a complete record and a composite query obscures whether every request is executed and which evidence supports the answer. We propose a task-oriented multi-agent framework that represents a composite query as distinct intents and typed tasks with explicit intra-intent dependencies. Specialized agents execute retrieval, analysis, and advice tasks; isolated intent states preserve request boundaries and evidence relationships before aggregation. We evaluate the framework on a synthetic dataset of $10{,}000$ virtual users with one month of longitudinal wearable records, covering structured data retrieval, multi-intent recognition, and overall response quality. Across $1{,}500$ retrieval questions, the Query Agent achieves $98.3\%$ accuracy, compared with $97.9\%$ for the Direct LLM baseline, while reducing average query-stage token consumption from $6{,}869$ to $3{,}136$. On $180$ multi-intent questions, the Manager Agent achieves $100.0\%$ Multi-Intent Coverage and $94.4\%$ Multiset Jaccard Similarity. Under the current synthetic evaluation setting, our method receives higher mean Trustworthiness and Transparency scores on both question categories, whereas Actionability does not improve consistently. These results provide preliminary evidence that explicit task organization can support task-relevant data access and data-grounded longitudinal analysis, while leaving health advice generation and validation on real wearable data as open challenges.

Most reported gains on agentic-LLM clinical benchmarks are often attributed to prompt engineering, yet our results suggest that larger improvements can come from architectural and engine-level design. We present MDIA, a Multi-agent Diagnostic Intelligence Agent implemented as a 7-node specialty-routed clinical reasoning graph, on the full HealthBench Professional benchmark (n = 525), on a non-fine-tuned LLM. MDIA achieves 0.6272 under OpenAI's GPT-5.4-2026-03-05, which is +3.72 pp above the performance of OpenAI's ChatGPT for Clinicians. The experimental work shows that performance lift is attributable to system architecture: specialty routing, multi-turn context preservation, drug-state safety gating, site-filtered search, length-aware synthesis, and engine-level reliability. These findings support the view that agentic clinical benchmark performance is shaped both by the underlying foundation model and the orchestration architecture. Nevertheless, we also noticed notable differences when using other models as a grader; in particular, when using Gemini 2.5 Pro, MDIA scored 0.6585, which suggests that the choice of grader is a source of variability. Robust evaluation of LLMs would therefore require assessment across several independent grader models.