GUIDE: Computationally Augmented Consensus for Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines
Authors: Yuanfan Lin, Jie Di, Xujin He, Zhenzhe Lin, Jialing Chen, Ruiyang Li, Changyu Zheng, Yuanrui Shang, +16 more
Organizations: Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, WHO Collaborating Centre for Eye Care and Vision, State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Ocular Diseases, Guangzhou, China · Zhongshan School of Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China · Hainan Eye Hospital and Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Haikou, Hainan, China · Department of Genetics and Biomedical Informatics, Zhongshan School of Medicine, Institute for Frontier Interdisciplinary Research in Health Sciences and Technology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China · Lead contact
Maintaining up-to-date clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is essential for evidence-based medicine, but rapid evidence growth and complex expert consensus formation limit timely updates. We developed GUIDE, a multi-agent copilot system for human-AI collaborative guideline generation and updating. GUIDE delegates labor-intensive tasks to specialized AI agents while preserving expert judgment and final arbitration. In 12 NICE ophthalmology datasets, GUIDE achieved 88.85% literature recall, 86.06% alignment in certainty-of-evidence ratings, and 91.67% recommendation agreement, requiring 162.17 minutes per dataset on average (28.68% human intervention). Performance remained stable across 20 additional datasets from cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and respiratory medicine. Ablation analysis showed that removing expert intervention reduced performance in judgment-intensive steps such as Risk-of-Bias assessment. In six post-cutoff datasets, GUIDE maintained robust end-to-end performance on unseen evidence. Prospective real-world validation showed that GUIDE reduced expert workload and produced more clinically acceptable recommendations than the original decade-old guideline (mean score, 3.73 vs. 1.53; agreement, 66.7% vs. 13.3%), with outcomes comparable to human-only updating (P = 0.588) but substantially less time and effort. GUIDE offers a practical framework for timely, trustworthy, expert-centric guideline development and validates computationally augmented consensus.