Interactive clinical agents acquire evidence through patient dialogue and diagnostic examinations, yet their performance also depends on how the interaction environment exposes information, available actions, and examination results. When these conditions are implicit or inconsistently controlled, final-answer accuracy can conflate diagnostic reasoning with the effects of the interaction protocol. We propose the Evidence-Grounded Interaction Protocol (EGIP), which enforces role-specific information boundaries, exposes diagnostic actions without revealing their results, retrieves examination results from stored clinical records, and organizes acquired evidence for final decision-making. By separating evidence acquisition from terminal prediction, EGIP enables different decision strategies to operate on the same observations. We evaluate EGIP across two clinical-agent frameworks, five datasets, and six language models. EGIP improves diagnostic accuracy over native baselines across all primary comparisons. A clinician review further shows that the proportion of automatically scored correct responses jointly judged evidence-supported rises from 10.20% to 36.55%. These findings support the effectiveness of EGIP as a unified interaction protocol for improving clinical-agent performance through controlled evidence access and acquisition.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Evidence-access interfaces in clinical simulation. Top: potential issues in prompt-mediated interaction. Bottom: EGIP’s role-specific views, result-blinded action menus, record lookup, and acquired-evidence interface. Y denotes the reference target.
Figure 2: Overview of EGIP. Dark, bold labels and thick borders highlight the four core components: role-specific views ( R ), result-blinded action menus ( B ), record lookup ( O ), and the acquired-evidence interface ( E ). The protocol separates evidence acquisition from terminal prediction. The hidden reference target Y is used only for post-prediction evaluation.
Backbone
Method
MedQA
MedQA_Ext
NEJM
NEJM_Ext
MIMIC-IV
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
MedAgentSim
29.91±7.99
31.78±4.15
24.44±13.88
10.83±0.83
57.41±0.40
+ EGIP-Direct
57.94±2.47
55.61±0.81
77.78±3.85
45.00±3.63
87.62±0.20
AgentClinic
33.33±3.28
34.58±2.47
26.67±6.67
12.78±3.94
66.44±2.09
+ EGIP-Direct
57.01±1.87
54.67±0.00
73.33±0.00
51.39±2.10
85.88±1.22
Llama3.1-8B
MedAgentSim
31.15±3.28
29.28±1.43
13.33±6.67
12.50±0.83
50.35±1.04
+ EGIP-Direct
59.81±1.87
65.26±3.57
53.33±6.67
47.50±2.20
78.12±2.28
Table 1: Accuracy (%) across four backbones, reported as mean ± sample standard deviation over three repetitions. Framework rows denote Native. Shaded entries denote EGIP-Direct. Bold marks the higher mean within each Native–EGIP pair.
Method
MedQA
MIMIC-IV
Llama3.3-70B-AWQ
MedAgentSim
66.04±1.95
79.51±2.84
+ EGIP-Direct
73.83±2.47
72.69±2.56
AgentClinic
70.09±5.68
80.21±1.51
+ EGIP-Direct
76.01±1.08
80.21±1.84
Qwen2.5-72B-AWQ
Table 2: Auxiliary Native–EGIP-Direct comparisons on MedQA and MIMIC-IV. Values are automated accuracy (%), reported as mean ± sample standard deviation over three repetitions. Shading and bold mark the higher mean within each pair, including ties.
Dataset
Variant
Acc. (%)
Drop (pp)
Paired 95% CI
Panel A. Acquisition components
MedQA
EGIP-Direct
57.94±2.47
–
–
w/o action menu
24.30±0.00
33.64
[24.30, 42.68]
Native measurement access
54.83±1.95
3.12
[ −1.56 , 8.10]
NEJM_Ext
EGIP-Direct
45.00±3.63
–
–
w/o action menu
40.56±0.96
4.44
[ −1.67 , 10.83]
Table 3: Ablations with Qwen2.5-VL-7B on MedAgentSim. Accuracy (%) is mean ± sample standard deviation over three repetitions. Drop is the shaded control minus the variant within each panel and dataset, in percentage points (pp). Bold drops have paired, pointwise 95% CIs excluding zero. Panel B uses rerun controls. “w/o” denotes removal. MedQA has no candidate labels.
Figure 3: Comparison of Direct, Vote, and Full on the same acquired evidence for Qwen2.5-VL-7B on MedAgentSim. Accuracy and answer coverage are computed over all scheduled outputs.
Support rule / dataset
Native, n/N (%)
Direct, n/N (%)
Δ (pp)
Paired 95% CI
Panel A. Correct-and-supported yield (539 complete pairs)
Both clinicians S (CSY)
55/539 ( 10.20 )
197/539 ( 36.55 )
+26.35
[20.93, 31.79]
Clinician 1 S
112/539 (20.78)
259/539 (48.05)
+27.27
[21.59, 33.09]
Clinician 2 S
74/539 (13.73)
233/539 (43.23)
+29.50
[23.89, 35.12]
At least one clinician S
131/539 (24.30)
295/539 (54.73)
+30.43
[24.72, 36.19]
Panel B. Evidence support within the shared correct-answer subset (105 pairs)
Table 4: Exploratory review of Native and EGIP-Direct outputs. Panel A reports correct-and-supported yield. Panel B reports support in the post hoc shared correct-answer subset (105 pairs from 60 source cases). Panel C reports joint support irrespective of correctness. CSY requires automated correctness and two supported ( S ) ratings. n/N : qualifying outputs/complete pairs. Δ : Direct minus Native in percentage points. CIs cluster by source case. Shading and bold mark joint-support summaries.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Framework
Dataset
Δ
Paired 95% CI
Effect bounds
Conservative envelope
Qwen
MAS
MedQA
28.04
[20.56, 35.83]
[1.25, 27.10]
[-6.54, 34.89]
Qwen
MAS
MedQA_Ext
23.83
[18.22, 29.60]
[0.62, 24.14]
[-5.14, 29.60]
Qwen
MAS
MIMIC-IV
30.21
[26.16, 34.26]
[9.26, 26.97]
[4.98, 30.90]
Qwen
MAS
NEJM
53.33
[20.00, 80.00]
[15.56, 55.56]
[-13.33, 82.22]
Qwen
MAS
NEJM_Ext
34.17
[26.39, 42.22]
[14.72, 40.56]
[6.94, 48.33]
Qwen
AC
MedQA
23.68
[15.26, 32.09]
[15.26, 28.04]
[6.85, 36.14]
Appendix
Table 5: Direct minus Native in percentage points. MAS: MedAgentSim. AC: AgentClinic. CIs are paired, pointwise 95% intervals. Effect bounds are not confidence intervals.
Model
Framework
Dataset
Δ
Paired 95% CI
Effect bounds
Conservative envelope
Qwen
MAS
MedQA
3.12
[-2.81, 9.35]
[-3.12, 8.41]
[-9.97, 14.33]
Qwen
MAS
MedQA_Ext
3.89
[-0.31, 7.79]
[-1.56, 8.10]
[-5.76, 12.15]
Qwen
MAS
MIMIC-IV
11.69
[8.56, 15.05]
[8.56, 15.62]
[4.98, 19.33]
Qwen
MAS
NEJM
22.22
[6.67, 40.00]
[6.67, 22.22]
[-6.67, 40.00]
Qwen
MAS
NEJM_Ext
4.17
[-2.22, 10.83]
[-3.89, 12.78]
[-10.83, 20.00]
Qwen
AC
MedQA
6.23
[-0.31, 12.77]
[0.62, 9.35]
[-6.54, 16.51]
Appendix
Table 6: Direct minus Full in percentage points. MAS: MedAgentSim. AC: AgentClinic. CIs are paired, pointwise 95% intervals. Effect bounds are not confidence intervals.
Stratum
Cases
Model
Framework
Native
Direct
Paired 95% CI
Conservative envelope
Native U
Diagnosis
90
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
MAS
13.70
45.93
[23.33, 41.48]
[2.96, 48.89]
—
Diagnosis
90
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
AC
14.81
54.81
[30.00, 49.63]
[8.89, 53.33]
—
Diagnosis
90
Llama3.1-8B
MAS
12.22
49.26
[27.78, 46.30]
[4.81, 51.48]
—
Diagnosis
90
Llama3.1-8B
AC
6.67
45.93
[29.63, 48.52]
[19.26, 58.89]
—
Etiology etc.
13
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
MAS
2.56
28.21
[7.69, 46.15]
[2.56, 56.41]
—
Etiology etc.
13
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
AC
12.82
23.08
[-5.13, 28.21]
[-12.82, 51.28]
—
Appendix
Table 7: NEJM_Ext target strata for the four primary backbones. Values are automated accuracy (%) over three repetitions. Paired 95% CIs and conservative envelopes report Direct minus Native in percentage points for Qwen2.5-VL-7B and Llama3.1-8B. U counts Native unscored outputs across repetitions for Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-14B. Dashes denote unreported statistics. All 120 cases are retained, with strata defined by question semantics.
Model
Framework
Dataset
Δ
Paired 95% CI
Holm p
U
Qwen3-8B
MAS
MedQA
+21.18
[13.71, 28.97]
0.0014
91
Qwen3-8B
MAS
MedQA_Ext
+22.74
[16.98, 28.35]
0.0014
182
Qwen3-8B
MAS
MIMIC-IV
+7.18
[2.08, 12.27]
0.0496
97
Qwen3-8B
MAS
NEJM
+42.22
[15.56, 68.89]
0.0812
8
Qwen3-8B
MAS
NEJM_Ext
+33.06
[24.44, 41.67]
0.0014
86
Qwen3-8B
AC
MedQA
+12.77
[4.98, 20.56]
0.0295
0
Appendix
Table 8: Direct minus Native for Qwen3 and the larger backbones. CIs use case-cluster bootstrap resampling. Exploratory sign-flip p values are Holm-adjusted across the 28 comparisons.
Interactive clinical agents operate under partial observability, so reliable care depends on reaching the correct diagnosis through evidence-grounded, safe interactions. Yet existing agents struggle to convert experience into reusable process knowledge with explicit provenance and authority. To address this gap, we introduce MediSkill-Evo, which self-evolves governed process knowledge without fine-tuning the backbone. It realizes this self-evolution by updating clinical, process, symbolic, and visual knowledge in four typed banks under type-specific validation and scope rules. The Process-Constrained Preference Harness then turns validated knowledge into action by grounding candidates in evidence and prioritizing safer decisions. We evaluate on 300 MIMIC-IV-derived FullChain encounters, 180 hard-isolation conditions covering six process obligations, and 100 multimodal NEJM image-diagnosis cases. On Qwen FullChain, MediSkill-Evo improves diagnosis accuracy by 7.81% and treatment-intent coverage by 70.67% over the best-performing prior agent, while reducing critical failures by 43.04%. Under stress, it improves the stress-process composite by 7.77% and required-action completion by 12.41% over the best-performing agent for each metric, with stronger patient-fact, temporal-evidence, and triage-red-flag recovery and no controller-scored errors in unavailable-evidence, treatment, and triage safety checks. On multimodal NEJM diagnosis, MediSkill-Evo with optional MedSAM localization improves diagnosis accuracy by 2.56% and core score by 18.96% over the best-performing memory agent. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/mediskill-evo_anonymous-68E7.
Ruoyu Wu, Shenfu Xie, Yinqian Sun +2
Brain-inspired Cognitive AI Lab, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Beijing Key Laboratory of Safe AI and Superalignment · Beijing Institute of AI Safety and Governance +2
Clinical diagnosis is an active evidence-seeking process in which clinicians acquire evidence, update competing hypotheses, and decide when the available evidence is sufficient for diagnosis. Yet many medical diagnosis systems built around large language models (LLMs) still formulate diagnosis as static case-to-answer prediction, with limited support for evidence acquisition. Agentic LLMs offer a dynamic alternative through tool use and intermediate diagnostic trajectories, but existing systems often under-specify how patient evidence should be exposed, scaffolded, and controlled at runtime. We introduce EviDx, an evidence-aware active diagnosis framework that pairs patient-specific diagnostic environments with a clinical diagnostic scaffold and an observer-guided runtime harness. In EviDx, E-Synthesis constructs interactive environments from raw clinical cases; the scaffold organizes role-specialized agents, evidence tools, and evolving evidence states; and the harness regulates diagnostic termination by tracking uncertainty and evidence coverage. A 3-level evaluation pyramid assesses execution robustness, reasoning dynamics, and diagnostic outcomes. Experiments show that EviDx improves diagnostic performance and process stability while revealing model-dependent capability boundaries.
Lihang Zeng, Shaoting Zhang, Xiaofan Zhang
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Shanghai Innovation Institute
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for health-related decision support. Yet most evaluations treat diagnosis as a single-shot task with complete information provided upfront, often as a multiple-choice selection. This diverges from clinical practice, where diagnosis is interactive and open-ended, involving sequential hypothesis refinement through targeted questioning. We address this gap. We build MeDxBench, a large-scale benchmark of 4,421 clinical cases across 20 specialties. We further propose MeDxAgent, a multi-agent consultation system for interactive diagnosis, and systematically study its prompt-, flow- and agent-level design choices. MeDxAgent achieves a 10.3% accuracy gain over the baseline on MeDxBench, closing 52.3% of the gap to a full-information oracle. We find that specific design choices: collecting demographics first, passing summarized dialogue for diagnosis, and feeding candidate diagnoses for targeted questioning, improve accuracy, mirroring how physicians reason, though their effect emerges fully only in combination. Code and dataset will be released upon publication.
Akshat Sanghvi, Naren Akash, Raza Imam +2
Microsoft Research India · Institute of AI and Innovation, AIG Hospitals · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence