Advancing Clinical Genomic Analysis with a Skill-Centred Agent
Organizations: Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai AI Laboratory, Shanghai, China · Xinhua Hospital affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China · Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong ·
Abstract
Clinical genomic analysis requires experts to integrate evolving guidelines, databases, and computational evidence. As sequencing has become increasingly accessible, this complex and labor-intensive process has become a major bottleneck to the timely use of genomic information in clinical decision-making. To fill this gap, we developed ClinGeX, a large-language-model agent that composes 105 curated executable skills through task-specific retrieval and dependency-aware orchestration. On 223 temporally held-out benchmark cases, ClinGeX achieved 71.7% macro-averaged task-level concordance with expert reference classifications, compared with 45.7% for the strongest comparator. In a three-condition, counterbalanced human-AI collaboration study, 45 clinical genomic professionals assessed 135 clinically derived cases under routine (no AI assistance), DeepSeek-assisted and ClinGeX-assisted conditions. ClinGeX assistance increased raw case-level concordance across criterion-level variant analysis, genomic interpretation in rare disease and molecular oncology decision-making (51.1%, 57.8%, 64.4% versus 15.6%, 31.1%, 20.0% in comparator conditions) and reduced reported interpretation time in all scenarios. During an exploratory one-month real-world non-interventional assessment, 11 experienced professionals submitted feedback on 96 self-selected analysis episodes and reported frequent conclusion adoption and time savings. These findings support executable domain skills as a promising approach to augment specialist genomic interpretation.
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables21 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Action type | Candidate unit | Principal sources and acquisition route | Discovery output | Priority set | Frozen prototypes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guideline following | Normative document or linked document family | Organization-first scan: four federation directories yielded 106 unique organizations; 7 target bodies plus 9 gap-identified groups were searched through official sites and PubMed/PMC; linked procedural documents retained as families | 151 institutional mentions; 106 unique institutions; 195 documents | Authority, currency, supersession, verifiability, accessibility and faithful representability; no common cutoff | 27 |
| Entity mapping | Standard, ontology, nomenclature service or transformation tool | GA4GH GKS (11 records), EDAM-filtered bio.tools (3,256), NAR Web Server Issues 2023–2026 (276), and HPO/Monarch (10); required conversion of clinical-genomics entities or representations rather than evidence retrieval | 3,553 raw records; 3,508 normalized candidates | 31 Tier 1 candidates | 13 |
| Data-source lookup | Database, repository, knowledge base or search service | Complete harvests of the NAR Database Issue (2,594), bio.tools (33,203), re3data.org (3,516) and FAIRsharing.org (6,051); identifiers, names and URLs linked conservatively; interface, access, licence, maintenance and output metadata retained | 45,364 catalogue records; 41,000 linked resource clusters | 211 Tier 1 clusters | 30 |
| Numerical calculation | Deterministic formula, score, lookup table or decision algorithm | Reverse mapping from 195 normative documents plus targeted clinical-genomics enumeration; 30 listed methods and 23 additional normative requirements consolidated when mathematically equivalent; explicit inputs and a reproducible rule required | 53 distinct candidate methods | 19 Tier 1 methods | 12 |
| Model-based prediction | Trained model or distinct predictive signal | dbNSFP/ClinGen SVI (51 records), VEP/ANNOVAR/OpenCRAVAT (74), and CAGI/ProteinGym (80); duplicate access routes for the same signal consolidated; target, variant class, calibration, benchmark, deployment, maintenance, licence and provenance retained | 205 source records; 144 consolidated models | 18 Tier 1 models | 23 |
| Total | Heterogeneous discovery units; not arithmetically pooled | 105 |
| Action type | Screening input and implementation | Criteria and weights | Output before expert review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guideline following | Normative-document metadata and source text; direct review rather than the generic database rubric | Issuing-body authority, document type, currency, supersession, citation verifiability, accessibility, clinical scope and faithful representability of the operative rule | 195 documents reviewed; no common numerical cutoff |
| Entity mapping | Registry metadata; one structured GPT-5.5 assessment per record after a 40-record pilot | Same 12 dimensions as data-source lookup, with the target operation defined as nomenclature, coordinate, format or ontology transformation | 31 Tier 1 candidates from 3,508 normalized candidates |
| Data-source lookup | Registry metadata; one structured GPT-5-mini assessment per non-rule-filtered record | Domain centrality (15), clinical actionability (12), human orientation (8), guideline recognition (15), subdomain mapping (5), programmatic access (10), maintenance (7), access/licensing (6), query definability (4), incremental value (3), authoritative stewardship (9), and citation/adoption (6) | 211 Tier 1, 939 Tier 2, 2,600 Tier 3 and 37,250 excluded clusters |
| Numerical calculation | Method description and linked normative provisions; category-specific structured assessment | Explicit guideline requirement (20), official thresholds or weights (15), deterministic algorithm (20), availability of clinical inputs (12), independent implementation (8), breadth (10), and consequence of error (15) | 19 Tier 1, 25 Tier 2 and 9 Tier 3 methods |
| Model-based prediction | Model, calibration, benchmark and deployment metadata; category-specific structured assessment | Domain centrality (12), guideline-calibrated evidence strength (18), independent benchmark performance (12), variant-class breadth (6), precomputed scores (14), pipeline integration (10), maintenance (6), access/licence (5), stewardship (9), and citation/adoption (8) | 18 Tier 1, 35 Tier 2, 88 Tier 3 and 3 excluded models |
| ID | Action and input | Prespecified pass criterion | Observed result | Verdict |
| S1 | Query chr7:g.140453136A>T | applicable=true ; REVEL score | Applicable; REVEL score 0.931 | PASS |
| S2 | Query synonymous variant rs1799949 | applicable=false | Not applicable; no REVEL score returned | PASS |
| S3 | Query chr1:g.999999999G>A | not_found=true | Variant absent from dbNSFP; not_found=true | PASS |
| S4 | Query multi-allelic rs113488022 | disambiguated=true ; at least two alleles | Three alleles returned (A G, A T and A C) | PASS |
| S5 | Batch query: S1 variant plus S3 variant | Two results; first applicable, second not found | Two ordered results; score 0.931 for the first and not_found=true for the second | PASS |
| S6 | Interpret REVEL score 0.95 | acmg_evidence=PP3_Strong | PP3 Strong; calibrated threshold | PASS |
| Dimension | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose similarity | Unrelated questions | Distant subject overlap | Overlapping question, different angle | Largely same question, different method/source | Essentially the same question |
| Input overlap | Inputs barely intersect | Minor intersection | Moderate overlap | Mostly overlapping inputs | Nearly identical input domain |
| Substitutability | Not interchangeable | Rarely interchangeable | Partly interchangeable | Largely interchangeable | Fully redundant |
| Complementarity | No added value together | Slight added value | Moderate independent value | Strong gain in confidence/coverage | Joint use close to essential |
| Joint usage | Essentially never co-used | Occasional co-occurrence | Common pairing | Frequently merged downstream | Near-inseparable in workflow |
| Task | Source | Principal information supplied to the system | Principal reference outputs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNV interpretation | ClinVar/ClinGen expert-panel records | 79 | Variant, disease, mode of inheritance and supporting literature | ACMG/AMP evidence criteria, evidence strengths, final five-tier pathogenicity classification and interpretation summary |
| Gene–disease validity | ClinGen | 66 | Gene, disease, mode of inheritance, applicable curation framework and supporting literature | Genetic- and experimental-evidence items and scores, final validity classification and evidence summary |
| Clinical actionability | CIViC | 46 | Molecular profile, disease, therapy, phenotype and supporting literature | Assertion type, significance, AMP category, assertion direction and clinical assertion |
| OncoKB | 12 | Gene alteration, cancer type and supporting literature | OncoKB evidence level, associated drug or regimen, FDA level where applicable and clinical interpretation | |
| PharmGKB/ClinPGx | 20 | Variant or haplotype, gene, drug, phenotype, specialty population and supporting literature | Phenotype category, evidence score, evidence level and interpretation summary | |
| Total | Five resources | 223 |
| System | SNV interpretation: ClinVar/ClinGen | Gene–disease validity: ClinGen | Clinical actionability: CIViC/OncoKB/PharmGKB |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenBioLLM | 0/79 (0%) | 0/66 (0%) | 0/78 (0%) |
| OpenAI DeepResearch | 3/79 (3.8%) | 2/66 (3.0%) | 2/78 (2.6%) |
| SciSpace | 1/79 (1.3%) | 1/66 (1.5%) | 3/78 (3.8%) |
| Biomni | 4/79 (5.1%) | 1/66 (1.5%) | 1/78 (1.3%) |
| TxAgent | 0/79 (0%) | 2/66 (3.0%) | 1/78 (1.3%) |
| ClinGeX | 0/79 (0%) | 0/66 (0%) | 0/78 (0%) |
| System | Underlying LLM used | System type | Benchmark configuration |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenBioLLM | OpenBioLLM-70B (derived from Llama 3 70B) | Domain-adapted biomedical LLM | Model response generated without an external agent framework. |
| OpenAI DeepResearch | o3-deep-research | Commercial deep-research agent | OpenAI Responses interface with native web search and code interpreter; access to the five ground-truth databases was prohibited. |
| SciSpace | Proprietary LLM backend (not disclosed by provider) | Commercial literature-research system | Provider-hosted interface; the backend model could not be independently configured or verified. |
| Biomni | DeepSeek-V4 ( deepseek-v4-pro ) | Open-source biomedical code-execution agent | Biomni A1 with its tool retriever enabled; a new A1 instance was created for each case. |
| TxAgent | DeepSeek-V4 ( deepseek-v4-pro ) | Open-source ToolUniverse agent | Original TxAgent orchestration layer retained; inference backend replaced with the same DeepSeek model used by ClinGeX. |
| ClinGeX | DeepSeek-V4 ( deepseek-v4-pro ) | Skill-centred clinical-genomics agent | Full skill library and orchestration workflow. |
| System | Agent or tool budget | Request and recovery controls |
|---|---|---|
| OpenBioLLM | Direct model generation; no external agent loop. | The exact checkpoint revision, numerical precision and generation configuration were not recorded in the archived manifest. |
| OpenAI DeepResearch | At most 30 combined native web-search and code-interpreter calls per job. | Jobs were polled every 5 s for at most 2,700 s; the client timeout was 3,600 s. Transient requests used up to five attempts, and failed background jobs could be recreated up to six times. |
| SciSpace | Provider-managed literature-search workflow. | Tool budget, timeout and recovery policy were not exposed by the provider. |
| Biomni | Tool retriever enabled; a fresh A1 instance for every case; individual executed code blocks limited to 600 s. | LLM request timeout, 180 s. |
| TxAgent | At most 50 multistep rounds; maximum 2,048 newly generated tokens per model call; nominal context ceiling, 90,240 tokens; temperature, 0.3. | LLM request timeout, 180 s; up to five attempts with exponential backoff. |
| ClinGeX | At most 50 agent turns. | LLM request timeout, 180 s; up to five attempts with exponential backoff. |
| Task | Endpoint | Implemented denominator |
| SNV interpretation | Final concordance and significant-error rate | All 79 cases; missing or unparsable predictions remain incorrect observations. |
| Sensitivity / specificity | The 34 pathogenic or likely pathogenic references / the 28 benign or likely benign references, respectively; VUS references are not in either binary denominator. | |
| Evidence recall / strength concordance | All reference criteria pooled, or the 79 case-level recall values; strength uses only correctly recalled criterion codes. | |
| Gene–disease validity | Concordance and severity errors | Cases with a parsable prediction in the seven-category vocabulary ( ), reported separately for each system. |
| Score coverage / score MAE | Coverage denominator, ; MAE denominator, cases in which the relevant numerical score or interval was stated. | |
| Clinical actionability | Final concordance and severity errors | The 65 tier-applicable cases: 33 CIViC, 12 OncoKB and 20 PharmGKB. |
| Rank | CIViC AMP category | OncoKB level | PharmGKB level |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Tier I–Level A | LEVEL_1 | 1A |
| 5 | Tier I–Level B | LEVEL_2 ; LEVEL_R1 | 1B |
| 4 | Tier II–Level C | LEVEL_3A | 2A |
| 3 | Tier II–Level D | LEVEL_3B ; LEVEL_R2 | 2B |
| 2 | Tier III | LEVEL_4 | 3 |
| 1 | Tier IV | No response-category equivalent | 4 |
| Dimension | Operational assessment | Ordered response categories |
|---|---|---|
| Overall acceptability | Whether the report’s conclusion and supporting interpretation could be accepted for the stated clinical-genomics task after expert review. | Yes; Partly; No |
| Required revision | The amount of substantive correction or rewriting required before the report could be accepted. This was rated separately from acceptability. | No revision; Partial revision; Substantial revision |
| Citation accuracy | Whether cited publications were identifiable and whether the findings attributed to them were supported by the cited source. | Largely accurate; Partly accurate; Inaccurate |
| Guideline adherence | Whether the reasoning, terminology and final conclusion followed the framework applicable to the case: ACMG/AMP, ClinGen Gene Curation, CIViC, OncoKB or PharmGKB. | Largely adherent; Partly adherent; Not adherent |
| Hallucinated information | Whether the report introduced fabricated or unsupported facts, numerical values, citations, study findings or clinical assertions. | Absent; Partly present; Present |
| Potential clinical risk | Whether errors or unsupported claims in the report could plausibly mislead variant classification, gene–disease assessment, therapeutic interpretation or another downstream clinical decision. | Absent; Partly present; Present |
| Task | Dimension | Operational assessment | Ordered response categories |
|---|---|---|---|
| SNV interpretation | Evidence use | Whether the report selected and applied relevant population, computational, functional, segregation, allelic and other evidence appropriately to the evaluated variant–disease pair. | Largely reasonable; Partly reasonable; Unreasonable |
| Evidence strength | Whether the strengths assigned to ACMG/AMP criteria, including any strength modification under the applicable expert-panel specification, were appropriate. | Largely reasonable; Partly reasonable; Unreasonable | |
| Gene–disease validity | Genetic-evidence analysis | Whether proband, segregation, case–control and other genetic evidence was identified, interpreted and weighted appropriately under the ClinGen framework. | Largely reasonable; Partly reasonable; Unreasonable |
| Experimental-evidence analysis | Whether functional alteration, biochemical function, expression, interaction, model-system and rescue evidence was identified, interpreted and weighted appropriately under the ClinGen framework. | Largely reasonable; Partly reasonable; Unreasonable | |
| Clinical actionability | Evidence relevance and completeness | Whether the selected evidence was relevant to the specific variant, disease, drug or therapeutic context and whether material evidence needed for the clinical assertion was covered. | Largely relevant and complete; Partly relevant and complete; Irrelevant or incomplete |
| Evidence interpretation | Whether the selected evidence was interpreted correctly with respect to its direction, clinical significance, evidence tier, therapeutic association and source-specific conclusion. | Largely correct; Partly correct; Incorrect |
| Condition | Component added to DeepSeek-V4 | Operational configuration |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek | None | The model answered the supplied question directly. It was not given retrieval tools, worked examples, domain-skill instructions or the ability to delegate to sub-agents. This condition is referred to as the unenhanced base-model baseline. |
| DeepSeek + RAG | Search-function bundle | All search-related capabilities implemented in the ClinGeX skill collection were consolidated into a retrieval bundle and exposed to the model. The condition did not receive non-search clinical-analysis skills, the skill graph or multi-agent orchestration. |
| DeepSeek + fewshot | Three worked question–answer examples | Three worked examples were inserted into the model context before the test item. The examples illustrated the expected question–answer interaction, but this condition had no external retrieval, domain-skill library or sub-agent delegation. |
| DeepSeek + MA | Planner–executor–reviewer workflow | Three DeepSeek-V4 instances were assigned the roles of planner, executor and reviewer. The planner decomposed the item, the executor produced a draft by following the plan, and the reviewer checked the draft and returned revision instructions before finalisation. |
| DeepSeek + BioSkill | GitHub BioSkill repository | The open-source BioSkill instructions and associated resources were exposed through a common wrapper while retaining DeepSeek-V4 as the core model. The ClinGeX-specific selector, skill graph and skill library were not used. |
| DeepSeek + MedSkill | GitHub MedSkill repository | The open-source MedSkill instructions and associated resources were exposed through the same wrapper principle and with the same DeepSeek-V4 core. The ClinGeX-specific selector, skill graph and skill library were not used. |
| Source | Clinical-genomics domain | Tier 1 | Tier 2 | Tier 3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ClinVar | Variant interpretation | 39 | 22 | 19 | 80 |
| ClinGen | Gene–disease validity | 54 | 53 | 31 | 138 |
| CIViC | Clinical actionability | 30 | 16 | 19 | 65 |
| OncoKB | Clinical actionability | 29 | 14 | 14 | 57 |
| ClinPGx | Clinical actionability | 45 | 19 | 22 | 86 |
| Total | 197 | 124 | 105 | 426 |
| Tier | General operation | Representative task-specific operations | Principal scoring focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Single-publication comprehension | Recover a paper-specific clinical, quantitative, functional, segregation or pharmacogenomic finding and interpret it in the anchor context. | Correct factual elements; correct direction and magnitude where applicable; source-specific caveats; absence of invented details. |
| 2 | Evidence selection and strength grading | Map evidence to an ACMG/AMP criterion; justify a ClinGen evidence type or score modification; distinguish clinical from preclinical evidence; grade actionability or replication strength; reject a plausible but non-applicable publication. | Correct evidence selection; correct criterion, level or weight; justification based on study design and context; appropriate handling of a distractor or conflicting result. |
| 3 | Multi-source synthesis and decision | Reconcile multiple submissions or studies; classify a variant; synthesize gene–disease mechanism or lumping–splitting evidence; select or sequence a therapy; provide a PGx prescribing recommendation with evidence-strength caveats. | Correct final synthesis or recommendation; prioritisation of directly applicable evidence; integration across sources; calibrated uncertainty and clinically important caveats. |
| Agent core | Parameter scale reported for the experiment | Access category | Role in the comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-V4 | 862B | Openly deployable | Candidate selected for the main ClinGeX experiments |
| Qwen3 | 235B | Openly deployable | Open-model comparator |
| GLM-5 | 754B | Openly deployable | Open-model comparator |
| GPT-5.4-Pro | Provider not disclosed | Provider hosted | Closed-model frontier comparator |
| Claude-4.6-Opus | Provider not disclosed | Provider hosted | Closed-model frontier comparator |
| Gemini-3-Pro | Provider not disclosed | Provider hosted | Closed-model frontier comparator |
| Domain | Source | Candidates a | Accepted b | Discarded | Selected c | Principal evidence join |
| Variant interpretation | ClinVar | 1,176 | 743 | 433 | 743 | Submission–PMID |
| ClinGen-ACMG | 1,235 | 623 | 612 | 623 | Variant–evidence code–PMID | |
| Gene–disease validity | ClinGen | 2,471 | 1,440 | 1,031 | 1,253 | Assertion–evidence row–PMID |
| Clinical actionability | CIViC | 408 | 294 | 114 | 294 | Evidence item–PMID |
| OncoKB | 524 | 222 | 302 | 222 | Association–PMID | |
| PharmGKB/ClinPGx | 1,000 | 527 | 473 | 527 | Variant annotation–PMID |
| Scenario | Information presented | Required reader entries |
|---|---|---|
| Criterion-level variant analysis | De-identified phenotype, variant in transcript-level notation, associated gene/disease and inheritance context, and case-specific publications when available | For each of the 28 ACMG/AMP criteria: applicable, not applicable or undetermined; effective evidence strength (Very Strong, Strong, Moderate or Supporting) when applicable; and an optional criterion-level rationale. The reader then entered one five-tier pathogenicity classification, a five-point confidence rating, an integrated written justification and completion time. |
| Genomic interpretation in rare disease | De-identified phenotype and a set of candidate variants, including gene, variant description, zygosity, parental origin or phase when available | For every candidate variant: one five-tier pathogenicity category and one five-category assessment of how well the variant explained the phenotype. The reader additionally entered one case-level confidence rating, an integrated explanation covering the candidate set, and completion time. |
| Molecular oncology decision-making | De-identified longitudinal clinical, pathological, treatment and molecular findings, followed by one case-specific decision or interpretation question | An open-text answer and its confidence rating, followed by a separate judgement of each of four candidate statements as basically reasonable, partly reasonable or unreasonable, a second confidence rating for the statement judgements, optional explanations and completion time. |
| Scenario | Requirements for a concordant case | Tolerance and discordance rules |
|---|---|---|
| Criterion-level variant analysis | Exact final five-tier classification; every reference ACMG/AMP criterion recovered; strength of each recovered reference criterion within one adjacent level on Supporting–Moderate–Strong–Very Strong. | Any missing reference criterion, strength difference exceeding one level or wrong final class was discordant. Material unsupported evidence could also make the complete response discordant. |
| Genomic interpretation in rare disease | Exact pathogenicity category for every clinically material candidate; phenotype-explanation category within the accepted range; correct causal combination and inheritance configuration; coherent integrated interpretation. | One adjacent phenotype level was accepted only when the substantive interpretation was unchanged. Larger differences, an incorrect causal combination or incompatible narrative were discordant. |
| Molecular oncology decision-making | Panel-adjudicated agreement of the open answer with the core conclusion and a statement profile preserving the reference clinical positions. | One adjacent statement level was accepted only when the clinical stance was unchanged. A contradictory open answer or endorsement of a materially unsafe or unsupported action was discordant. |
| Scenario | Outcome | Analysis unit per condition | Denominator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Criterion-level variant analysis | Evidence recall | Reference criterion instance | 176 reference criteria |
| Evidence hallucination rate | Submitted applicable criterion instance | Number called applicable in that condition | |
| Evidence-strength concordance | Correctly recalled reference criterion | Number recalled in that condition | |
| Pathogenicity accuracy | Complete submitted case | 45 | |
| Pathogenicity underestimation rate | Complete submitted case | 45 | |
| Pathogenicity overestimation rate | Complete submitted case | 45 |
| Participant | Conversations | Feedback submissions | Conservative coverage |
| User 1 | 9 | 7 | 77.8% |
| User 2 | 9 | 9 | 100% |
| User 3 | 12 | 9 | 75.0% |
| User 4 | 12 | 11 | 91.7% |
| User 5 | 7 | 7 | 100% |
| User 6 | 13 | 10 | 76.9% |