Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references

The Application of MATEC (Multi-AI Agent Team Care) Framework in Sepsis Care

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This pilot study claims that a team of specialized AI agents can assist sepsis care, and that ten attending physicians rated the framework very useful and very accurate.

desk verdict Promising pilot with honest limitations, but the 'very accurate' claim is unsupported by subjective Likert ratings without ground truth. read the letter →

arxiv 2503.16433 v1 pith:RPY53JOZ submitted 2025-02-09 cs.HC cs.CLcs.MA

Andrew Cho , Jason M. Woo , Brian Shi , Aishwaryaa Udeshi , Jonathan S. H. Woo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CLcs.MA
keywords multi-agentAIsepsiscarelargelanguagemodelsclinicaldecisionsupportteam-basedphysiciansurveyunder-resourcedhospitalsgapanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This pilot study proposes MATEC, a framework in which a team of specialized AI agents—five doctor agents, four health professional agents, and a risk prediction model agent, plus 33 consultable specialist agents—works together on sepsis care. The authors claim that such a team can support diagnosis, treatment planning, risk prediction, and care-gap analysis in hospitals that lack specialists. To support that claim, ten attending physicians used a web-based version for about 40 minutes and rated it very useful (median 4, $P=0.01$) and very accurate (median 4, $P<0.01$), with both ratings statistically above neutral. If the claim is right, a modular team of AI agents could act as a clinical decision-support layer for under-resourced settings, flagging care gaps and social determinants that a single model might miss.

What carries the argument

The central object is the MATEC sepsis agent team: role-specific agents for emergency medicine, hospital medicine, infectious disease, critical care, nursing, pharmacy, social work, patient safety, quality improvement, and a risk prediction model using the National Early Warning Score, all coordinated through structured prompts. The agents use Chain-of-Thought reasoning, ReAct-style reasoning and acting, and retrieval-augmented generation over a vector database. The senior physician agent is the load-bearing piece: it synthesizes the other doctor agents' inputs, verifies facts, screens for hallucinations, and issues final diagnoses and treatment plans, which is what the authors credit for the framework's accuracy ratings.

What would settle it

Give MATEC a set of sepsis cases with expert-adjudicated gold-standard diagnoses and treatments, blind physicians to whether each output comes from MATEC or from a single LLM, and measure agreement with the gold standard; if MATEC's concordance is no better than the single model's or than chance, the central accuracy claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a multi-agent AI team can be assembled from a base LLM and role-specific prompts to handle sepsis workflows, and that a small group of attending physicians judged the resulting outputs useful, accurate, and consistent. The authors argue that because agents review each other's outputs—with a senior physician agent synthesizing diagnoses and screening for hallucinations—the framework can reduce errors compared with a single LLM. They also report that users found structured prompt templates and care-gap analysis useful, and that physicians with prior LLM experience rated the framework more useful than other LLMs. The intended conclusion is that MATEC could potentially assist medical professionals, particularly where specialist access is limited.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy claim rests on ten physicians' subjective ratings of outputs from unblinded test cases, not on comparison with a gold-standard diagnosis, so the ratings measure perceived accuracy rather than demonstrated diagnostic accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A hospital without an infectious disease specialist or critical care physician could consult the corresponding agent and receive a synthesized assessment within minutes.
  • Structured prompts and care-gap templates could become a routine part of sepsis rounds, with social work and patient safety agents ensuring that social determinants of health and SEP-1 quality measures are not overlooked.
  • Because the team is modular, new specialist agents can be added as needed without rebuilding the framework.
  • Multiple agents cross-verifying outputs could reduce hallucination relative to a single LLM, which is the paper's stated advantage.
  • The framework could be embedded in electronic health record workflows to monitor deterioration, medication safety, and discharge barriers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An extension beyond the paper: a stronger test than the pilot's self-rated accuracy would be a blinded comparison in which physicians score MATEC outputs against outputs from a single LLM and against an expert panel's chart review.
  • If the perceived-accuracy result holds up, the same role-based agent architecture could plausibly be ported to other high-stakes conditions such as stroke, myocardial infarction, or ICU deterioration by swapping the specialty agents.
  • The biggest practical unknown is not agent capability but trust and workflow integration: the paper's own discussion notes the application must be embedded in electronic health records before real adoption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents MATEC, a multi-agent large language model framework for sepsis care, comprising ten core agents (doctor, nursing, pharmacy, social work, patient safety, risk prediction) and 33 consult specialist agents. The authors describe the system architecture, a web-based proof-of-concept interface, and a pilot evaluation in which ten attending physicians at a single teaching hospital interacted with the system for about 40 minutes and gave Likert-scale ratings on usefulness, accuracy, consistency, and care-gap analysis. The reported results are favorable median ratings (e.g., Median=4 for usefulness and accuracy), tested with a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test against a neutral score of 3. The paper concludes that MATEC 'can potentially be used to assist medical professionals, particularly in under-resourced hospital settings.'

Significance. If its claims were substantiated, MATEC would be a useful proof-of-concept that a structured multi-agent LLM system can be perceived as helpful by physicians and might support diagnosis, treatment planning, and care-coordination tasks in settings with limited specialist access. The paper's strength is that it provides a concrete, fairly detailed architecture and reports real survey data from practicing physicians, using a statistical test appropriate for ordinal responses. However, the evidence is limited to subjective favorability ratings from ten participants at one site, and the accuracy claim is not backed by any ground-truth comparison. The paper is best read as a feasibility/usability pilot; its more ambitious claims about accuracy and error reduction are not supported by the data as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3 (Framework Accuracy)] The claim that MATEC is 'very accurate' is not supported by the data. The survey scale is anchored from 1 (unfavorable) to 5 (favorable), and the one-sample Wilcoxon test described in Section 2 only establishes that the median rating differs from a neutral score of 3. It does not measure the correctness of diagnoses or treatment plans against a gold standard, and no objective error counts, blinded expert adjudication, or comparison with a known-correct answer are reported. This issue is load-bearing because the abstract's 'very accurate' and the Discussion's causal statement that 'multiple agents cross-verifying outputs can effectively minimize errors and hallucinations' (Section 4) go beyond what the data can show. The authors should either remove or rephrase these claims as 'perceived accuracy' and add a validation against ground-truth clinical vignettes with independent scoring.
  2. [Section 3 (Framework Usefulness) and Section 4 (Discussion)] The claim that MATEC is 'more useful compared to other LLMs' is based on the retrospective opinion of six physicians who had prior experience with LLMs, not on a direct head-to-head comparison in the study. The statement appears in Section 3 and is echoed in the Discussion as an advantage over single-LLM approaches, but without a within-subjects or paired design that presents the same cases to a single LLM and to MATEC, this comparative claim is not testable. The authors should either add such a comparison or downgrade the claim to 'participants with prior LLM experience reported that MATEC was more useful than their recollection of other LLMs.'
  3. [Section 2 (Methods) and Section 5 (Conclusion)] The study population of ten attending physicians at a single teaching hospital does not represent the target population of under-resourced or rural hospitals. The conclusion that MATEC 'can potentially be used to assist medical professionals, particularly in under-resourced hospital settings' is an extrapolation beyond the sampled context, because no clinician from a rural or under-resourced setting participated and no deployment in such a setting was studied. A clear limitation statement to this effect is needed, or a justification for why the sample is informative for that setting.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2 (Methods)] The evaluation cases are described only as 'NEJM cases and detailed hypothetical clinical vignettes'; the number of cases, how they were selected, and whether all participants saw the same cases are not specified, which limits the reproducibility of the survey.
  2. [Section 3 (Framework Accuracy)] The text describes ratings as 'very accurate' and 'highly accurate,' but the Likert scale anchors are 'unfavorable' to 'favorable.' The wording conflates favorability with accuracy; a more precise description would be 'fairly favorable' or 'perceived as accurate.'
  3. [Abstract and Section 3] The P-value for the accuracy rating is reported as P<0.01 in the abstract and P=0.005 in the results; these should be made consistent.
  4. [Section 2 (Methods)] The manuscript does not mention institutional review board approval or exemption, nor participant consent, for the physician survey; this should be added for human-subjects research.
  5. [Section 3 and Figure 6] The full questionnaire items and response distributions are not provided; the items for 'consistency' and 'relevance' are mentioned but not shown, so readers cannot assess what was actually rated.
  6. [References] The reference for Chroma is listed as 'Introduction - Chroma Docs' without an author or year; it should be formatted consistently with the journal's style and include a URL and access date.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey ratings are reported as ratings; the accuracy claim is an overstatement of subjective evidence, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation or fitted-parameter chain. It describes a framework built from prompt engineering, RAG, and an externally established NEWS-based risk score, then reports a ten-physician Likert survey. The 'very accurate' statement is a direct summary of an item asking physicians to rate accuracy; it is an operationalized subjective outcome, not a quantity fitted from the data and then renamed as a prediction. The survey is self-referential only in the trivial sense that the authors built both the framework and the instrument, but the respondents are independent of the authors and their ratings are real empirical evidence about perceived usefulness and consistency. The absence of a gold-standard diagnosis or objective error counts weakens the evidential value of the accuracy claim, and the Discussion's inference from a favorable rating to actual error/hallucination minimization is an unsupported causal leap; those are correctness/validity limitations, not circularity as defined by the seven patterns. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-smuggled assumptions appear, so the derivation chain (such as it is) is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The ledger is light on fitted parameters because the paper contains no mathematical derivation. The framework rests on unverified domain assumptions about LLM accuracy, the validity of self-reported physician accuracy ratings, the representativeness of the selected vignettes, and the applicability of the Wilcoxon test to this small ordinal sample. The MATEC agent team itself is an invented software entity whose efficacy has no independent evidence beyond the pilot survey.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The base LLM plus RAG produces medically accurate content that agents can synthesize safely.
    The entire framework assumes the underlying model's outputs are accurate enough for clinical decision support, which the pilot does not verify against ground truth.
  • domain assumption Physician Likert ratings on non-blinded vignettes measure the framework's actual accuracy.
    Section 3 (Framework Accuracy) uses these ratings as the outcome for accuracy; no gold standard or independent audit is used.
  • ad hoc to paper The selected NEJM-style cases and hypothetical sepsis vignettes represent the clinical variety of under-resourced hospital settings.
    Section 2 states cases were selected, but no sampling framework or coverage analysis is provided.
  • standard math The one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test is appropriate for Likert data from 10 physicians.
    Section 2 states the test; the sample is small and Likert data are ordinal, assumptions are not checked.
invented entities (1)
  • MATEC multi-agent team (10 core agents plus 33 consult agents)
    purpose: Generate differential diagnoses, treatment plans, care gap analyses, SDOH assessments, and risk predictions in sepsis care
    The framework's efficacy rests solely on the 10-physician pilot survey in this paper; no external benchmark, clinical trial, or reproducible artifact is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Application of MATEC (Multi-AI Agent Team Care) Framework in Sepsis Care." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RPY53JOZ

@misc{pith2026250316433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Application of MATEC (Multi-AI Agent Team Care) Framework in Sepsis Care},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RPY53JOZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2503.16433}
}
read the original abstract

Under-resourced or rural hospitals have limited access to medical specialists and healthcare professionals, which can negatively impact patient outcomes in sepsis. To address this gap, we developed the MATEC (Multi-AI Agent Team Care) framework, which integrates a team of specialized AI agents for sepsis care. The sepsis AI agent team includes five doctor agents, four health professional agents, and a risk prediction model agent, with an additional 33 doctor agents available for consultations. Ten attending physicians at a teaching hospital evaluated this framework, spending approximately 40 minutes on the web-based MATEC application and participating in the 5-point Likert scale survey (rated from 1-unfavorable to 5-favorable). The physicians found the MATEC framework very useful (Median=4, P=0.01), and very accurate (Median=4, P<0.01). This pilot study demonstrates that a Multi-AI Agent Team Care framework (MATEC) can potentially be useful in assisting medical professionals, particularly in under-resourced hospital settings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2503.16433 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. MATEC framework web-based user interface. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Example output from sepsis medical team and social work AI agent. A case with sepsis due to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Example of Care Gap Analysis. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stacked bar chart illustrating distribution of survey results based on Likert-scale from 1 to 5. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example output of Patient Navigator agent. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    URL https://docs.trychroma.com/docs/overview/introduction

    Introduction - Chroma Docs . URL https://docs.trychroma.com/docs/overview/introduction

    work page

  2. [2]

    Combining Multiple Large Language Models Improves Diagnostic Accuracy

    Gioele Barabucci, Victor Shia, Eugene Chu, Benjamin Harack, Kyle Laskowski, and Nathan Fu. Combining Multiple Large Language Models Improves Diagnostic Accuracy . NEJM AI, 1 0 (11): 0 AIcs2400502, October 2024. doi:10.1056/AIcs2400502. URL https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIcs2400502. Publisher: Massachusetts Medical Society

    work page doi:10.1056/aics2400502 2024

  3. [3]

    Sitapati, Chad VanDenBerg, Karandeep Singh, Christopher A

    Aaron Boussina, Rishivardhan Krishnamoorthy, Kimberly Quintero, Shreyansh Joshi, Gabriel Wardi, Hayden Pour, Nicholas Hilbert, Atul Malhotra, Michael Hogarth, Amy M. Sitapati, Chad VanDenBerg, Karandeep Singh, Christopher A. Longhurst, and Shamim Nemati. Large Language Models for More Efficient Reporting of Hospital Quality Measures . NEJM AI, 1 0 (11): 0...

    work page doi:10.1056/aics2400420 2024

  4. [4]

    Predicting ICU admission and death in the Emergency Department : A comparison of six early warning scores

    Marcello Covino, Claudio Sandroni, Davide Della Polla, Giuseppe De Matteis, Andrea Piccioni, Antonio De Vita, Andrea Russo, Sara Salini, Luigi Carbone, Martina Petrucci, Mariano Pennisi, Antonio Gasbarrini, and Francesco Franceschi. Predicting ICU admission and death in the Emergency Department : A comparison of six early warning scores. Resuscitation, 19...

    work page arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Coopersmith, Craig French, Flávia R

    Laura Evans, Andrew Rhodes, Waleed Alhazzani, Massimo Antonelli, Craig M. Coopersmith, Craig French, Flávia R. Machado, Lauralyn Mcintyre, Marlies Ostermann, Hallie C. Prescott, Christa Schorr, Steven Simpson, W. Joost Wiersinga, Fayez Alshamsi, Derek C. Angus, Yaseen Arabi, Luciano Azevedo, Richard Beale, Gregory Beilman, Emilie Belley-Cote, Lisa Burry, ...

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    AI Hospital : Benchmarking Large Language Models in a Multi -agent Medical Interaction Simulator , June 2024

    Zhihao Fan, Jialong Tang, Wei Chen, Siyuan Wang, Zhongyu Wei, Jun Xi, Fei Huang, and Jingren Zhou. AI Hospital : Benchmarking Large Language Models in a Multi -agent Medical Interaction Simulator , June 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09742. arXiv:2402.09742 [cs]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Chaunzwa, Idalid Franco, Benjamin H

    Marco Guevara, Shan Chen, Spencer Thomas, Tafadzwa L. Chaunzwa, Idalid Franco, Benjamin H. Kann, Shalini Moningi, Jack M. Qian, Madeleine Goldstein, Susan Harper, Hugo J. W. L. Aerts, Paul J. Catalano, Guergana K. Savova, Raymond H. Mak, and Danielle S. Bitterman. Large language models to identify social determinants of health in electronic health records...

    doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00970-0 2024

  8. [8]

    Vince Hartman, Xinyuan Zhang, Ritika Poddar, Matthew McCarty, Alexander Fortenko, Evan Sholle, Rahul Sharma, Thomas Campion, Jr, and Peter A. D. Steel. Developing and Evaluating Large Language Model – Generated Emergency Medicine Handoff Notes . JAMA Network Open, 7 0 (12): 0 e2448723, December 2024. ISSN 2574-3805. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.48723....

    arXiv 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    The United Kingdom ’s National Early Warning Score : should everyone use it? A narrative review

    Mark Holland and John Kellett. The United Kingdom ’s National Early Warning Score : should everyone use it? A narrative review. Internal and Emergency Medicine, 18 0 (2): 0 573--583, 2023. ISSN 1828-0447. doi:10.1007/s11739-022-03189-1. URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Hood, Keith P

    Carlyn M. Hood, Keith P. Gennuso, Geoffrey R. Swain, and Bridget B. Catlin. County Health Rankings : Relationships Between Determinant Factors and Health Outcomes . American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50 0 (2): 0 129--135, February 2016. ISSN 1873-2607. doi:10.1016/j.amep...

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Chaiyachati, Vicki Fung, Spero M

    Monique Jindal, Krisda H. Chaiyachati, Vicki Fung, Spero M. Manson, and Karoline Mortensen. Eliminating health care inequities through strengthening access to care. Health Services Research, 58 Suppl 3 0 (Suppl 3): 0 300--310, December 2023. ISSN 1475-6773. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14202

    2023

  4. [12]

    Benefits, Limits , and Risks of GPT -4 as an AI Chatbot for Medicine

    Peter Lee, Sebastien Bubeck, and Joseph Petro. Benefits, Limits , and Risks of GPT -4 as an AI Chatbot for Medicine . New England Journal of Medicine, 388 0 (13): 0 1233--1239, March 2023. ISSN 0028-4793. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr2214184. URL https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJ...

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Synthetic Data Generation with Large Language Models for Text Classification : Potential and Limitations , October 2023

    Zhuoyan Li, Hangxiao Zhu, Zhuoran Lu, and Ming Yin. Synthetic Data Generation with Large Language Models for Text Classification : Potential and Limitations , October 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07849. arXiv:2310.07849 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Large Language Model Distilling Medication Recommendation Model , February 2024

    Qidong Liu, Xian Wu, Xiangyu Zhao, Yuanshao Zhu, Zijian Zhang, Feng Tian, and Yefeng Zheng. Large Language Model Distilling Medication Recommendation Model , February 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.02803. arXiv:2402.02803 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Edwin Webb, Valerie Rohrbach, and Isabelle Von Kohorn

    Pamela Mitchell, Matthew Wynia, Robyn Golden, Bob McNellis, Sally Okun, C. Edwin Webb, Valerie Rohrbach, and Isabelle Von Kohorn. Core Principles & Values of Effective Team - Based Health Care . NAM Perspectives, October 2012. ISSN 2578-6865. doi:10.31478/201210c. URL https://...

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    RAG in Health Care : A Novel Framework for Improving Communication and Decision - Making by Addressing LLM Limitations

    Karen Ka Yan Ng, Izuki Matsuba, and Peter Chengming Zhang. RAG in Health Care : A Novel Framework for Improving Communication and Decision - Making by Addressing LLM Limitations . NEJM AI, 2 0 (1): 0 AIra2400380, January 2025. doi:10.1056/AIra2400380. URL https://ai.nejm.org/d...

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    Jack W. O'Sullivan, Anil Palepu, Khaled Saab, Wei-Hung Weng, Yong Cheng, Emily Chu, Yaanik Desai, Aly Elezaby, Daniel Seung Kim, Roy Lan, Wilson Tang, Natalie Tapaskar, Victoria Parikh, Sneha S. Jain, Kavita Kulkarni, Philip Mansfield, Dale Webster, Juraj Gottweis, Joelle Barr...

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Using Large Language Models to Promote Health Equity

    Emma Pierson, Divya Shanmugam, Rajiv Movva, Jon Kleinberg, Monica Agrawal, Mark Dredze, Kadija Ferryman, Judy Wawira Gichoya, Dan Jurafsky, Pang Wei Koh, Karen Levy, Sendhil Mullainathan, Ziad Obermeyer, Harini Suresh, and Keyon Vafa. Using Large Language Models to Promote Hea...

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Klein, and Franklin D

    Bianca Quagliarello, Christian Cespedes, Maureen Miller, Aixsa Toro, Peter Vavagiakis, Robert S. Klein, and Franklin D. Lowy. Strains of Staphylococcus aureus obtained from drug-use networks are closely linked. Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infec...

    2002 doi

  12. [20]

    Brunisholz, Carter Dredge, Pascal Briot, Kyle Grazier, Adam Wilcox, Lucy Savitz, and Brent James

    Brenda Reiss-Brennan, Kimberly D. Brunisholz, Carter Dredge, Pascal Briot, Kyle Grazier, Adam Wilcox, Lucy Savitz, and Brent James. Association of Integrated Team - Based Care With Health Care Quality , Utilization , and Cost . JAMA, 316 0 (8): 0 826--834, August 2016. ISSN 00...

    2016

  13. [21]

    Kutty, Lauren Moccia, Ibironke W

    Brian Rha, Isaac See, Lindsay Dunham, Preeta K. Kutty, Lauren Moccia, Ibironke W. Apata, Jennifer Ahern, Shelley Jung, Rongxia Li, Joelle Nadle, Susan Petit, Susan M. Ray, Lee H. Harrison, Carmen Bernu, Ruth Lynfield, Ghinwa Dumyati, Marissa Tracy, William Schaffner, D. Cal Ha...

    2017

  14. [22]

    Rudd, Niranjan Kissoon, Direk Limmathurotsakul, Sotharith Bory, Birungi Mutahunga, Christopher W

    Kristina E. Rudd, Niranjan Kissoon, Direk Limmathurotsakul, Sotharith Bory, Birungi Mutahunga, Christopher W. Seymour, Derek C. Angus, and T. Eoin West. The global burden of sepsis: barriers and potential solutions. Critical Care, 22: 0 232, September 2018. ISSN 1364-8535. doi...

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Large language models and synthetic health data: progress and prospects

    Daniel Smolyak, Margrét V Bjarnadóttir, Kenyon Crowley, and Ritu Agarwal. Large language models and synthetic health data: progress and prospects. JAMIA Open, 7 0 (4): 0 ooae114, December 2024. ISSN 2574-2531. doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooae114. URL https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaope...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Bulaong, John E

    Kyle Swanson, Wesley Wu, Nash L. Bulaong, John E. Pak, and James Zou. The Virtual Lab : AI Agents Design New SARS - CoV -2 Nanobodies with Experimental Validation , November 2024. URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.11.623004v1. Pages: 2024.11.11.623004 Section...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    LLaMA : Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models , February 2023

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. LLaMA : Open and Efficient Foundation Languag...

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Truong, Alina A

    Hannah P. Truong, Alina A. Luke, Gmerice Hammond, Rishi K. Wadhera, Mat Reidhead, and Karen E. Joynt Maddox. Utilization of Social Determinants of Health ICD -10 Z - Codes Among Hospitalized Patients in the United States , 2016-2017. Medical Care, 58 0 (12): 0 1037--1043, Dece...

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    Sara Mahdavi, Bradley Green, Ewa Dominowska, Blaise Aguera y Arcas, Joelle Barral, Dale Webster, Greg S

    Tao Tu, Shekoofeh Azizi, Danny Driess, Mike Schaekermann, Mohamed Amin, Pi-Chuan Chang, Andrew Carroll, Charles Lau, Ryutaro Tanno, Ira Ktena, Anil Palepu, Basil Mustafa, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Yun Liu, Simon Kornblith, David Fleet, Philip Mansfield, Sushant Prakash, Renee Wong,...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Chain-of- Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models , January 2023

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of- Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models , January 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903. arXiv:2201.11903 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Will, Melissa L

    Kristen K. Will, Melissa L. Johnson, and Gerri Lamb. Team- Based Care and Patient Satisfaction in the Hospital Setting : A Systematic Review . Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews, 6 0 (2): 0 158--171, April 2019. ISSN 2330-068X. doi:10.17294/2330-0698.1695. URL ht...

    2019

  22. [30]

    White, Doug Burger, and Chi Wang

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Ryen W. White, Doug Burger, and Chi Wang. AutoGen : Enabling Next - Gen LLM Applications via Multi - Agent Conversation , October ...

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    ReAct : Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models , March 2023

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct : Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models , March 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03629. arXiv:2210.03629 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Blecker, and Jonah Feldman

    Jonah Zaretsky, Jeong Min Kim, Samuel Baskharoun, Yunan Zhao, Jonathan Austrian, Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs, Ravi Gupta, Saul B. Blecker, and Jonah Feldman. Generative Artificial Intelligence to Transform Inpatient Discharge Summaries to Patient - Friendly Language and Format . ...

    2024

  25. [33]

    A trust based framework for the envelopment of medical AI

    Lena Christine Zuchowski, Matthias Lukas Zuchowski, and Eckhard Nagel. A trust based framework for the envelopment of medical AI . npj Digital Medicine, 7 0 (1): 0 1--11, August 2024. ISSN 2398-6352. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01224-3. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-02...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.