Toward an Agentic AI Approach to Public Health Data Collection
Organizations: Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA · Engineering and Applied Sciences Department, RAND, Arlington, USA
Abstract
Disease surveillance increasingly integrates automated data collection, yet predefined sources and procedures require manual adaptation as reporting practices change. We explore agentic artificial intelligence (AI) as an approach to coordinating surveillance data collection across heterogeneous sources. Specifically, we built a multi-agent framework that integrates source discovery, source assessment, evidence structuring, event linking, and validation. Three retrospective applications illustrate its promise. The workflow recovered all 13 individual cases in a hantavirus outbreak, with links to 85 distinct publisher domains compared with 28 in the reference benchmark, reconstructed Canadian measles counts with a final total 0.33% below the national reference and higher cumulative counts on 79.8% of comparable days, and increased the share of days with recent Sierra Leone mpox reports from 28.2% to 65.6% by incorporating attributed media. These demonstrations also reveal limitations in record completeness and accuracy, while prospective gains in timeliness remain untested. We envision agentic AI as a complementary layer of public health data infrastructure, coordinating evidence-linked collection under surveillance goals and standards defined by public health professionals.
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Stage | Key activities | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Task specification | Define collection scope; assemble disease terminology; specify requested fields and evidence requirements. | Collection specification and record schema. |
| 2. Source discovery | Plan source categories and queries; search; refine queries around evidence gaps; consolidate repeated results. | Candidate sources with discovery information. |
| 3. Evidence acquisition | Assess relevance, publisher and permitted use; retrieve documents; retain extractable text and table context. | Assessed sources and traceable evidence fragments. |
| 4. Structured extraction | Extract explicitly reported observations; separate statistical meanings; validate and normalise records. | Structured observations with evidence and quality flags. |
| 5. Verification across sources | Link related reports; identify duplicates; compare aligned observations; retain support and disagreement. | Event groups, supporting evidence and unresolved discrepancies. |
| 6. Dataset assembly | Assess quality and evidence gaps; perform controlled recovery; retain any supplied review decisions and separate output categories. | Accepted dataset, pending issues and excluded records. |
| Case | Workflow all domains | Workflow direct evidence | Benchmark all domains |
|---|---|---|---|
| Case 1 | 54 | 19 | 3 |
| Case 2 | 41 | 14 | 4 |
| Case 3 | 35 | 12 | 4 |
| Case 4 | 32 | 14 | 2 |
| Case 5 | 12 | 3 | 4 |
| Case 6 | 11 | 2 | 5 |
| Measure | Workflow | GitHub benchmark |
|---|---|---|
| Correct recovery | 59/87 (67.82%) | 74/87 (85.06%) |
| Field completeness | 70/87 (80.46%) | 84/87 (96.55%) |
| Correctness among populated fields | 59/70 (84.29%) | 74/84 (88.10%) |
| Month | Official | Secondary | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb | 6 | 2 | 8 |
| Mar | 9 | 4 | 13 |
| Apr | 11 | 3 | 14 |
| May | 20 | 5 | 25 |
| Jun | 15 | 17 | 32 |
| Period | Comparable / calendar days | Higher / equal / lower days | Higher (%) | Mean (cases) | Relative (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | 0/31 | — | — | — | — |
| Feb | 25/28 | 13/0/12 | 52.0 | +8.80 | +20.16 |
| Mar | 31/31 | 23/0/8 | 74.2 | +70.65 | +27.68 |
| Apr | 30/30 | 30/0/0 | 100.0 | +125.90 | +15.98 |
| May | 31/31 | 29/0/2 | 93.5 | +326.32 | +18.94 |
| Jun | 30/30 | 29/0/1 | 96.7 | +139.57 | +4.55 |
| Period | Comparable / calendar days | Higher / equal / lower days | Higher (%) | Mean (cases) | Relative (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First month | 28/28 | 16/0/12 | 57.1 | +12.46 | +24.77 |
| First 3 months | 89/89 | 69/0/20 | 77.5 | +80.29 | +19.82 |
| First 6 months | 181/181 | 157/0/24 | 86.7 | +143.63 | +8.43 |
| First 9 months | 273/273 | 225/0/48 | 82.4 | +105.82 | +3.83 |
| Year | 331/365 | 264/0/67 | 79.8 | +88.71 | +2.77 |
| Month | National official | Media | Regional | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | 5 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Feb | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Apr | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| May | 0 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
| Jun | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Period | Shared days | All sources days (%) | Without media days (%) | Gain (pp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | 21 | 21 (100.0) | 21 (100.0) | 0.0 |
| Feb | 28 | 10 (35.7) | 0 (0.0) | 35.7 |
| Mar | 31 | 16 (51.6) | 0 (0.0) | 51.6 |
| Apr | 30 | 14 (46.7) | 0 (0.0) | 46.7 |
| May | 31 | 31 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 100.0 |
| Jun | 30 | 18 (60.0) | 0 (0.0) | 60.0 |
| Period | Comparable / calendar days | Higher / equal / lower days | Higher (%) | Mean (cases) | Relative (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan | 0/31 | — | — | — | — |
| Feb | 28/28 | 12/0/16 | 42.9 | -1.89 | -9.55 |
| Mar | 31/31 | 7/0/24 | 22.6 | -2.74 | -3.62 |
| Apr | 30/30 | 15/0/15 | 50.0 | +131.43 | +70.78 |
| May | 31/31 | 31/0/0 | 100.0 | +1073.90 | +94.26 |
| Jun | 30/30 | 25/0/5 | 83.3 | +262.67 | +7.41 |
| Period | Comparable / calendar days | Higher / equal / lower days | Higher (%) | Mean (cases) | Relative (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First month | 10/31 | 10/0/0 | 100.0 | +1.80 | +11.25 |
| First 3 months | 69/90 | 19/0/50 | 27.5 | -3.16 | -5.38 |
| First 6 months | 160/181 | 97/0/63 | 60.6 | +283.19 | +23.37 |
| First 9 months | 252/273 | 152/0/100 | 60.3 | +199.75 | +7.66 |
| Year | 334/365 | 178/56/100 | 53.3 | +160.47 | +4.87 |
Data Analysis Agents
Data analysis agents use language models and tools to explore datasets, run analyses, and produce answers or reports grounded in evidence.
See all 105 papers