Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

MedOrch: Medical Diagnosis with Tool-Augmented Reasoning Agents for Flexible Extensibility

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MedOrch, a single modular agent framework, claims 93.26% accuracy on Alzheimer's diagnosis and 50.35% on progression prediction by letting one language model call medical tools in context, with no retraining.

desk verdict Best@5 oracle scoring inflates MedOrch's headline AD accuracy; the framework itself is a solid modular tool-use system but the main empirical claims should be re-framed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00235 v1 pith:7FBNXM2X submitted 2025-05-30 cs.CL

Yexiao He , Ang Li , Boyi Liu , Zhewei Yao , Yuxiong He This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords medicalAIagentstool-augmentedreasoninglargelanguagemodelsAlzheimer'sdiseasediagnosismultimodaldatain-contexttoolcallingvisualquestionansweringchestX-rayclassification
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

MedOrch is a medical decision-support framework in which one large language model does the reasoning and decides, mid-answer, which specialized tools to call: database queries over patient records, web searches of clinical guidelines, code execution, brain MRI analysis, and medical question answering over images. The paper's central claim is that this single modular architecture, with no fine-tuning and no task-specific training, matches or beats specialist systems on three distinct applications: Alzheimer's disease diagnosis (93.26% accuracy, more than four points above the best baseline), Alzheimer's progression prediction (50.35% accuracy), chest X-ray classification, and multimodal visual question answering (54.47% on the hardest image-plus-table questions). The headline accuracy numbers come from a best@5 protocol, in which a case counts as correct if any of five independently generated reasoning paths reaches the right answer; the paper reports the protocol openly and also shows single-trajectory numbers. The claim matters because, if true, one adaptable, fully auditable system could replace a collection of rigid black-box models and give clinicians a verifiable reasoning trail for every recommendation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the in-context tool-calling protocol. A tool registry, containing semantic descriptions, input/output specifications, and usage examples for every available agent, is injected into the reasoning model's system prompt; during inference the model generates special tool-invocation tokens such as [IMAGE_QUERY], [SQL_QUERY], [WEB_QUERY], and [CODE_QUERY] at exactly the points where it judges that external evidence is needed. Each token triggers a three-step cycle — query routing to the appropriate agent, tool execution, and integration of the returned output back into the reasoning chain — and the loop continues until the model emits a conclusion without further tokens. A second mechanism, multi-trajectory generation, carries the accuracy claims: the same case is solved five times with varied evidence priorities and tool orderings, and the paper reports results under best@1, majority@5, and best@5 scoring, attributing the gain from 88.71% (best@1) to 93.26% (best@5) on three-class Alzheimer's diagnosis to the diversity of these reasoning paths.

What would settle it

Re-run the 638-question ADNI diagnosis evaluation using an answer the system would actually commit to — the first trajectory's answer, a majority vote, or a random draw from the five — instead of best@5, and compare with the reported 93.26%. If committed accuracy collapses toward the 88.71% best@1 level, the headline gain is an artifact of selecting trajectories with knowledge of the ground truth; if majority@5 or another commitment rule preserves most of the gain, the claim that diverse reasoning paths improve real diagnosis survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that in-context tool calling, initiated by the reasoning model itself, can turn a general-purpose LLM into a competitive multi-specialty diagnostician without retraining. MedOrch injects a tool registry into the model's context, and during its chain of thought the model emits special invocation tokens such as [IMAGE_QUERY], [SQL_QUERY], and [WEB_QUERY]; the system routes each token to the matching agent, executes the tool, and feeds the result back into the ongoing reasoning until the model concludes. On the ADNI dataset this yields 93.26% accuracy for three-class Alzheimer's diagnosis and 89.50% for the finer four-class task under best@5, 4.21 points above the previous best baseline on the three-class task, and 50.35% accuracy on disease-progression prediction (38.61% with a single trajectory, still above the best baseline). With only the image agent swapped, the same core reaches a macro AUC of 61.2% and macro F1 of 25.5% on MIMIC-CXR, and on EHRXQA it reaches 54.47% on image-plus-table questions without the hand-built SQL templates the baselines depend on. The paper presents these results as evidence that reasoning-driven tool orchestration generalizes across modalities and clinical domains without architectural change.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the best@5 evaluation is a legitimate measure of performance: the paper counts a case as solved if any one of five generated reasoning paths reaches the correct diagnosis, which presumes the evaluator already knows the right answer when choosing which path to credit; a deployed system gets no such oracle, so the headline accuracy is an optimistic upper bound rather than expected performance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If one reasoning core with interchangeable tools covers Alzheimer's assessment, chest X-ray reading, and EHR question answering, then adding new clinical capabilities becomes a matter of registering a new tool, not retraining a model.
  • The documented rise from 88.71% (single trajectory) to 93.26% (best@5) on AD diagnosis implies that generating several transparent reasoning paths materially improves diagnostic accuracy, which the paper ties to surfacing differential diagnoses for clinicians.
  • Because every tool call and returned result is logged, the framework provides a full audit trail of each recommendation, which the paper argues addresses the clinical and regulatory demand for explainable medical AI.
  • On EHRXQA, MedOrch reaches competitive accuracy with no hand-written question-to-SQL templates, suggesting that agentic zero-shot tool use can substitute for months of manual benchmark engineering.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My reading: because best@5 credits a case whenever any one of five paths is right, the reported 93.26% is an upper bound over an invisible committee; a deployed system that must commit to a single answer would land between the 88.71% best@1 and the best@5 figure, and the paper does not report that committed accuracy.
  • A testable extension: scaling the committee to ten or twenty trajectories on the same 638-question ADNI set would show whether the trajectory-diversity gain saturates, telling clinicians how many parallel analyses are actually worth running.
  • The framework's generality claim could be probed by porting the same registry-and-reasoning recipe to other multimodal medical benchmarks, such as pathology slides paired with reports or ECG-plus-chart data, where the paper's three tasks leave the space of clinical modalities largely unexplored.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. MedOrch is a modular, tool-augmented multi-agent framework for medical decision support. It uses a reasoning LLM (GPT-4o or o1-mini) that can invoke general-purpose agents (web search, coding, Text2SQL, RAG) and domain-specific agents (medical image analysis, medical imaging QA, clinical knowledge graph, longitudinal data analysis) through special tool-call tokens, without fine-tuning the core reasoning model. The paper evaluates MedOrch on three tasks: Alzheimer's disease diagnosis and progression prediction on ADNI, chest X-ray classification on MIMIC-CXR, and multimodal visual question answering on EHRXQA. The central empirical claim is that MedOrch achieves 93.26% accuracy for AD diagnosis, surpassing the state-of-the-art baseline by over four percentage points, with smaller but still substantial gains on progression prediction.

Significance. If the reported results were valid, MedOrch would demonstrate that a single orchestration framework can integrate heterogeneous medical tools and multiple reasoning trajectories to match or beat task-specific models without retraining. The architecture is genuinely modular, and the transparency of intermediate tool calls and reasoning traces is a useful contribution. The evaluation, however, rests on an oracle-based best@5 protocol that selects the correct answer among five generated trajectories, which is not a deployable accuracy measure and is not comparable to single-run baselines. The paper also leaves open whether diagnostic labels are accessible to the retrieval agents and whether the fine-tuned image-analysis model is evaluated on patients disjoint from its training set. These issues undermine the headline superiority claims and the validity of the ADNI experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.3, Table 1] The best@5 protocol defined in §4.2.3 ('the model generates five different reasoning paths, and if any of them produce the correct diagnosis, it is counted as correct') is an oracle selection rule: it assumes access to ground-truth labels when picking among the five trajectories. This is not a deployable accuracy measure, and it is not apples-to-apples with the single-run baseline numbers in Tables 1 and 2. On the three-class AD task, MedOrch(o1-mini) under best@1 is 88.71%, below ConvNext+GPT's 89.05%, and only the best@5 value (93.26%) yields the >4-point margin claimed in the abstract; even majority@5 (89.93%) is only slightly above the baseline. The same best@5 protocol is used for the 50.35% progression number (Table 2) and for EHRXQA (Table 4), so those numbers are also upper bounds rather than expected accuracies. The headline superiority claim is therefore unsupported by a valid evaluation.
  2. [§3.3, §4.2.1] The ADNI experimental design does not report whether the ground-truth diagnosis is accessible to the Text2SQL/retrieval agents. The task in §4.2.1 provides a patient ID and partial information and instructs the system to 'determine what additional information is required' and retrieve it. If the ADNI diagnostic label (e.g., the DX variable) is among the fields the Text2SQL agent can query, the task reduces to a database lookup, and the reported accuracies reflect information retrieval rather than reasoning. The manuscript must state explicitly that diagnostic labels and any direct label-derived features were excluded from the schema exposed to the agents; otherwise the AD diagnosis and progression results are not interpretable as evidence for the framework's reasoning capabilities.
  3. [Appendix A.2, §4.2.1] Appendix A.2 states that a 3D ResNet-50 was fine-tuned on ADNI baseline T1 scans with an 80:15:5 patient-level split, but the manuscript does not specify whether the 638 diagnostic QA examples are disjoint from the fine-tuning training split. If the same patients appear in both, the Medical Image Analysis Agent could have memorized labels, inflating MedOrch's performance. The paper must report the relationship between the fine-tuning split and the evaluation set, and ideally re-evaluate with a held-out cohort that is completely disjoint from all trained components.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] Several entries in Table 1 are missing separators between numbers (e.g., '87.5095.6063.33' and '89.0597.3389.29'), making the table hard to read; add column separators or spacing.
  2. [Table 2 caption] The caption contains an incomplete sentence: 'MedOrch (o1-mini) with achieves a best@1 accuracy of 38.61%' should read 'with best@1', and the sentence should be revised for grammar.
  3. [§4.4.2 vs Appendix A.1] The text says MedOrch 'does not assume access to such structured supervision' and 'operates in a fully zero-shot or few-shot fashion', but Appendix A.1 states that the Text2SQL agent is 'provided with comprehensive schema information'. The relationship between the available schema and the claimed lack of supervision should be clarified.
  4. [Abstract and Table 2] The abstract reports the 50.35% progression accuracy without noting that this is a best@5 oracle number; the protocol should be disclosed in the abstract or the claim should be restricted to majority@5/best@1, which are substantially lower (39.87% and 38.61%, respectively).
  5. [§4.4 and Table 4] The EHRXQA evaluation uses a random subset of 300 instances with no reported seed or confidence intervals, and on the Image+Table subset MedOrch(o1-mini, best@5) at 54.47% is below the ChatGPT+M3AE (BM25) baseline at 60.98%; the text's characterization of these results as 'strong' and 'competitive' should be tempered given the margin and the lack of variance estimates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: MedOrch is an empirical systems paper evaluated against external benchmarks, and its best@5 protocol is an evaluation-validity concern, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

This paper contains no derivation chain whose conclusions are equivalent to its inputs. MedOrch is evaluated on public datasets (ADNI, MIMIC-CXR, EHRXQA) against external baselines, and the headline 93.26% figure is produced by the best@5 scoring rule defined in Section 4.2.3 ('if any of them produce the correct diagnosis, it is counted as correct'). That rule is an oracle-style evaluation metric; it may overstate deployable accuracy, but it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and the reported number is not an analytic consequence of the system's definitions. The improvement from best@1 to best@5 is an observed property of the protocol, not a derived claim. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems appear; the cited prior works (e.g., [43], [13]) are external. The fine-tuned ResNet-50 in Appendix A.2 is a component tool with its own reported auxiliary accuracy (84.34%), not the framework's target prediction. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central contribution is an empirical system; the free parameters are evaluation choices and fitted tool models rather than theoretical constants. The largest burden is the best@5 oracle-selection protocol, which is an ad hoc evaluation assumption. The axioms are typical domain assumptions for medical QA plus the author-introduced evaluation assumption.

free parameters (3)
  • best@5 trajectory count and scoring rule = 5 trajectories; any correct answer counts
    Headline AD diagnosis (93.26%) and progression (50.35%) use best@5, an oracle selection that requires knowing the correct answer to choose among trajectories. It is a free evaluation parameter set by the authors; no ablation on k is reported.
  • Fine-tuned 3D ResNet-50 for ADNI MRI = 84.34% test accuracy on 80:15:5 patient split
    This tool model is fitted on ADNI baseline T1 scans and used by the Medical Image Analysis Agent; its outputs feed the orchestrating LLM. Training details and checkpoint are not provided.
  • EHRXQA evaluation subset = 300 questions: 69 image, 108 table, 123 image+table
    A random sample of the EHRXQA test set is used without seed or repeated sampling, so the reported accuracy has unknown variance and cannot be independently reproduced.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption In-context tool calling is reliable enough for autonomous diagnosis
    The model is not fine-tuned; correctness depends on GPT-4o/o1-mini producing correct tool-call tokens from a registry description in the system prompt. This is load-bearing for every result.
  • domain assumption Web search and RAG results are trustworthy
    The reasoning chain relies on external web snippets and guideline thresholds (e.g., Tau/ABETA ratio threshold) without verification of source quality or recency.
  • domain assumption ADNI and MIMIC-CXR labels are valid ground truth
    All accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity numbers assume the clinical labels in the datasets are correct and that the constructed QA templates are faithful clinical questions.
  • ad hoc to paper best@5 is a legitimate evaluation protocol
    The paper deliberately defines best@5 in Section 4.2.3 as counting a case correct if any of five trajectories is correct. This is an oracle protocol that uses ground truth; it is an author-introduced assumption and the main driver of the claimed SOTA results.
  • domain assumption Sampled EHRXQA subset is representative of the full benchmark
    The paper reports subset accuracy on 300 random questions as benchmark-level performance without confidence intervals or stratified sampling details.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MedOrch: Medical Diagnosis with Tool-Augmented Reasoning Agents for Flexible Extensibility." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7FBNXM2X

@misc{pith2026250600235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MedOrch: Medical Diagnosis with Tool-Augmented Reasoning Agents for Flexible Extensibility},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7FBNXM2X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00235}
}
read the original abstract

Healthcare decision-making represents one of the most challenging domains for Artificial Intelligence (AI), requiring the integration of diverse knowledge sources, complex reasoning, and various external analytical tools. Current AI systems often rely on either task-specific models, which offer limited adaptability, or general language models without grounding with specialized external knowledge and tools. We introduce MedOrch, a novel framework that orchestrates multiple specialized tools and reasoning agents to provide comprehensive medical decision support. MedOrch employs a modular, agent-based architecture that facilitates the flexible integration of domain-specific tools without altering the core system. Furthermore, it ensures transparent and traceable reasoning processes, enabling clinicians to meticulously verify each intermediate step underlying the system's recommendations. We evaluate MedOrch across three distinct medical applications: Alzheimer's disease diagnosis, chest X-ray interpretation, and medical visual question answering, using authentic clinical datasets. The results demonstrate MedOrch's competitive performance across these diverse medical tasks. Notably, in Alzheimer's disease diagnosis, MedOrch achieves an accuracy of 93.26%, surpassing the state-of-the-art baseline by over four percentage points. For predicting Alzheimer's disease progression, it attains a 50.35% accuracy, marking a significant improvement. In chest X-ray analysis, MedOrch exhibits superior performance with a Macro AUC of 61.2% and a Macro F1-score of 25.5%. Moreover, in complex multimodal visual question answering (Image+Table), MedOrch achieves an accuracy of 54.47%. These findings underscore MedOrch's potential to advance healthcare AI by enabling reasoning-driven tool utilization for multimodal medical data processing and supporting intricate cognitive tasks in clinical decision-making.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00235 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Radar charts comparing MedOrch and baselines across medical tasks: Alzheimer’s diagnosis (a) and prediction (b), chest X-ray classification (c), and multimodal question answering (d). MedOrch demonstrates competitive performance across these diverse domains with the same core architecture. decisions must account for the heterogeneous nature of clinical information sources, such as patient history, laboratory tests, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of the multiple reasoning trajectories generated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The overall architecture of MedOrch. The LLM maintains a chain-of-thought and emits tool-call tokens whenever external evidence is required. In the particular example shown in the figure, the reasoning model (1) first queries a web-search agent for differential causes of dyspnea; (2) then retrieves the patient’s demographics and history through a Text2SQL agent; (3) identifies gaps in the available evidence and proc… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MedOrch generates a set of transparent reasoning trajectories as references for clinicians 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Aligning Clinical Needs and AI Capabilities: A Survey on LLMs for Medical Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dual clinical-computational taxonomy for medical LLM reasoning plus a five-level 5k-sample benchmark showing specialists excel at diagnosis and general models at decision support/dialogue.

  2. AT-CXR: Uncertainty-Aware Agentic Triage for Chest X-rays

    eess.IV 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An uncertainty-aware agentic router with abstention improves pulmonary edema triage on a small balanced chest x-ray subset, but the selective-prediction gains rest on under-specified evaluation.

  3. The Path to Self-Evolving Clinical Systems: Scaling Medical Agents from Assistance to Autonomy

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5 of 10

    Medical agents should be scaled mainly by richer clinical environments and self-evolution loops, not parameter growth alone, under a three-level autonomy taxonomy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Toward expert-level medical question answering with large language models.Nature Medicine, pages 1–8, 2025

    Karan Singhal, Tao Tu, Juraj Gottweis, Rory Sayres, Ellery Wulczyn, Mohamed Amin, Le Hou, Kevin Clark, Stephen R Pfohl, Heather Cole-Lewis, et al. Toward expert-level medical question answering with large language models.Nature Medicine, pages 1–8, 2025

    2025

  2. [2]

    A survey on medical large language models: Technology, application, trustworthiness, and future directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03712, 2024

    Lei Liu, Xiaoyan Yang, Junchi Lei, Xiaoyang Liu, Yue Shen, Zhiqiang Zhang, Peng Wei, Jinjie Gu, Zhixuan Chu, Zhan Qin, et al. A survey on medical large language models: Technology, application, trustworthiness, and future directions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03712, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Deep multimodal fusion of image and non- image data in disease diagnosis and prognosis: a review.Progress in Biomedical Engineering, 5(2):022001, 2023

    Can Cui, Haichun Yang, Yaohong Wang, Shilin Zhao, Zuhayr Asad, Lori A Coburn, Keith T Wilson, Bennett A Landman, and Yuankai Huo. Deep multimodal fusion of image and non- image data in disease diagnosis and prognosis: a review.Progress in Biomedical Engineering, 5(2):022001, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Mdagents: An adaptive collaboration of llms for medical decision-making (2024).URL https://arxiv

    Yubin Kim, Chanwoo Park, Hyewon Jeong, Yik Siu Chan, Xuhai Xu, Daniel McDuff, Hyeon- hoon Lee, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park. Mdagents: An adaptive collaboration of llms for medical decision-making (2024).URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2404, 15155

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Chexnet: Radiologist-level 14 pneumonia detection on chest x-rays with deep learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05225, 2017

    Pranav Rajpurkar, Jeremy Irvin, Kaylie Zhu, Brandon Yang, Hershel Mehta, Tony Duan, Daisy Ding, Aarti Bagul, Curtis Langlotz, Katie Shpanskaya, et al. Chexnet: Radiologist-level 14 pneumonia detection on chest x-rays with deep learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05225, 2017

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Idx-dr for diabetic retinopathy screening.American family physician, 101(5):307– 308, 2020

    Margot Savoy. Idx-dr for diabetic retinopathy screening.American family physician, 101(5):307– 308, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Applying deep learning to metastatic breast cancer detection

    Martin Stumpe and C Mermel. Applying deep learning to metastatic breast cancer detection. Google AI Blog, 2018, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Functional requirements to mitigate the Risk of Harm to Patients from Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare

    Juan M García-Gómez, Vicent Blanes-Selva, José Carlos de Bartolomé Cenzano, Jaime Cebolla- Cornejo, and Ascensión Doñate-Martínez. Functional requirements to mitigate the risk of harm to patients from artificial intelligence in healthcare.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10424, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    A brief review of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01543, 2023

    Zahra Sadeghi, Roohallah Alizadehsani, Mehmet Akif Cifci, Samina Kausar, Rizwan Rehman, Priyakshi Mahanta, Pranjal Kumar Bora, Ammar Almasri, Rami S Alkhawaldeh, Sadiq Hus- sain, et al. A brief review of explainable artificial intelligence in healthcare.arXiv preprint arXiv:23...

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A labeled medical records corpus for the timely detection of rare diseases using machine learning approaches.Scientific Reports, 15(1):6932, 2025

    Matias Rolando, Victor Raggio, Hugo Naya, Lucia Spangenberg, and Leticia Cagnina. A labeled medical records corpus for the timely detection of rare diseases using machine learning approaches.Scientific Reports, 15(1):6932, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (adni) clinical characterization.Neurology, 74(3):201–209, 2010

    Ronald Carl Petersen, Paul S Aisen, Laurel A Beckett, Michael C Donohue, Anthony Collins Gamst, Danielle J Harvey, CR Jack Jr, William J Jagust, Leslie M Shaw, Arthur W Toga, et al. Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (adni) clinical characterization.Neurology, 74(3):2...

    2010

  4. [12]

    Mimic-cxr, a de-identified publicly available database of chest radiographs with free-text reports.Scientific data, 6(1):317, 2019

    Alistair EW Johnson, Tom J Pollard, Seth J Berkowitz, Nathaniel R Greenbaum, Matthew P Lungren, Chih-ying Deng, Roger G Mark, and Steven Horng. Mimic-cxr, a de-identified publicly available database of chest radiographs with free-text reports.Scientific data, 6(1):317, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Ehrxqa: A multi-modal question answering dataset for electronic health records with chest x-ray images.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:3867–3880, 2023

    Seongsu Bae, Daeun Kyung, Jaehee Ryu, Eunbyeol Cho, Gyubok Lee, Sunjun Kweon, Jungwoo Oh, Lei Ji, Eric Chang, Tackeun Kim, et al. Ehrxqa: A multi-modal question answering dataset for electronic health records with chest x-ray images.Advances in Neural Information Processing Sy...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Gatortron: A large clinical language model to unlock patient information from unstructured electronic health records.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.03540, 2022

    Xi Yang, Aokun Chen, Nima PourNejatian, Hoo Chang Shin, Kaleb E Smith, Christopher Parisien, Colin Compas, Cheryl Martin, Mona G Flores, Ying Zhang, et al. Gatortron: A large clinical language model to unlock patient information from unstructured electronic health records.arXi...

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Publicly available clinical bert embeddings.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03323, 2019

    Emily Alsentzer, John R Murphy, Willie Boag, Wei-Hung Weng, Di Jin, Tristan Naumann, and Matthew McDermott. Publicly available clinical bert embeddings.arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03323, 2019

    1904 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Biomedlm: A 2.7 b parameter language model trained on biomedical text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18421, 2024

    Elliot Bolton, Abhinav Venigalla, Michihiro Yasunaga, David Hall, Betty Xiong, Tony Lee, Roxana Daneshjou, Jonathan Frankle, Percy Liang, Michael Carbin, et al. Biomedlm: A 2.7 b parameter language model trained on biomedical text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18421, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dxplain: an evolving diagnostic decision-support system.Jama, 258(1):67–74, 1987

    G Octo Barnett, James J Cimino, Jon A Hupp, and Edward P Hoffer. Dxplain: an evolving diagnostic decision-support system.Jama, 258(1):67–74, 1987

    1987

  10. [18]

    Isabel: a web- based differential diagnostic aid for paediatrics: results from an initial performance evaluation

    P Ramnarayan, A Tomlinson, A Rao, M Coren, A Winrow, and J Britto. Isabel: a web- based differential diagnostic aid for paediatrics: results from an initial performance evaluation. Archives of disease in childhood, 88(5):408–413, 2003

    2003

  11. [19]

    Early experience with watson for oncology: a clinical decision- support system for prostate cancer treatment recommendations.World journal of urology, 39:407–413, 2021

    Seong Hyeon Yu, Myung Soo Kim, Ho Seok Chung, Eu Chang Hwang, Seung Il Jung, Taek Won Kang, and Dongdeuk Kwon. Early experience with watson for oncology: a clinical decision- support system for prostate cancer treatment recommendations.World journal of urology, 39:407–413, 2021. 15

    2021

  12. [20]

    Medclip: Contrastive learning from unpaired medical images and text

    Zifeng Wang, Zhenbang Wu, Dinesh Agarwal, and Jimeng Sun. Medclip: Contrastive learning from unpaired medical images and text. InProceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, v...

    2022

  13. [21]

    Towards generalist foundation model for radiology by leveraging web-scale 2d&3d medical data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02463, 2023

    Chaoyi Wu, Xiaoman Zhang, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Weidi Xie. Towards generalist foundation model for radiology by leveraging web-scale 2d&3d medical data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02463, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Towards generalist biomedical ai.Nejm Ai, 1(3):AIoa2300138, 2024

    Tao Tu, Shekoofeh Azizi, Danny Driess, Mike Schaekermann, Mohamed Amin, Pi-Chuan Chang, Andrew Carroll, Charles Lau, Ryutaro Tanno, Ira Ktena, et al. Towards generalist biomedical ai.Nejm Ai, 1(3):AIoa2300138, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Pmc-vqa: Visual instruction tuning for medical visual question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10415, 2023

    Xiaoman Zhang, Chaoyi Wu, Ziheng Zhao, Weixiong Lin, Ya Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, and Weidi Xie. Pmc-vqa: Visual instruction tuning for medical visual question answering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10415, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68539– 68551, 2023

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:68539– 68551, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Hugginggpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in hugging face.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:38154–38180, 2023

    Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. Hugginggpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in hugging face.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:38154–38180, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Gorilla: Large language model connected with massive apis.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:126544–126565, 2024

    Shishir G Patil, Tianjun Zhang, Xin Wang, and Joseph E Gonzalez. Gorilla: Large language model connected with massive apis.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:126544–126565, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Toolace: Winning the points of llm function calling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00920, 2024

    Weiwen Liu, Xu Huang, Xingshan Zeng, Xinlong Hao, Shuai Yu, Dexun Li, Shuai Wang, Weinan Gan, Zhengying Liu, Yuanqing Yu, et al. Toolace: Winning the points of llm function calling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00920, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    xlam: A family of large action models to empower ai agent systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03215, 2024

    Jianguo Zhang, Tian Lan, Ming Zhu, Zuxin Liu, Thai Hoang, Shirley Kokane, Weiran Yao, Juntao Tan, Akshara Prabhakar, Haolin Chen, et al. xlam: A family of large action models to empower ai agent systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03215, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Apigen-mt: Agentic pipeline for multi-turn data generation via simulated agent-human interplay.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03601, 2025

    Akshara Prabhakar, Zuxin Liu, Ming Zhu, Jianguo Zhang, Tulika Awalgaonkar, Shiyu Wang, Zhiwei Liu, Haolin Chen, Thai Hoang, Juan Carlos Niebles, et al. Apigen-mt: Agentic pipeline for multi-turn data generation via simulated agent-human interplay.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03601, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Search-o1: Agentic search-enhanced large reasoning models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05366, 2025

    Xiaoxi Li, Guanting Dong, Jiajie Jin, Yuyao Zhang, Yujia Zhou, Yutao Zhu, Peitian Zhang, and Zhicheng Dou. Search-o1: Agentic search-enhanced large reasoning models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05366, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Webthinker: Empowering large reasoning models with deep research capability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21776, 2025

    Xiaoxi Li, Jiajie Jin, Guanting Dong, Hongjin Qian, Yutao Zhu, Yongkang Wu, Ji-Rong Wen, and Zhicheng Dou. Webthinker: Empowering large reasoning models with deep research capability.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21776, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Agentic reasoning: Reasoning llms with tools for the deep research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04644, 2025

    Junde Wu, Jiayuan Zhu, and Yuyuan Liu. Agentic reasoning: Reasoning llms with tools for the deep research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.04644, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, 2023

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:8634–8652, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Freesurfer.Neuroimage, 62(2):774–781, 2012

    Bruce Fischl. Freesurfer.Neuroimage, 62(2):774–781, 2012. 16

    2012

  28. [36]

    Drugbank 6.0: the drugbank knowledgebase for 2024.Nucleic acids research, 52(D1):D1265–D1275, 2024

    Craig Knox, Mike Wilson, Christen M Klinger, Mark Franklin, Eponine Oler, Alex Wilson, Allison Pon, Jordan Cox, Na Eun Chin, Seth A Strawbridge, et al. Drugbank 6.0: the drugbank knowledgebase for 2024.Nucleic acids research, 52(D1):D1265–D1275, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    The framingham risk score: an appraisal of its benefits and limitations.American Heart Hospital Journal, 5(2):91–96, 2007

    Brian A Hemann, William F Bimson, and Allen J Taylor. The framingham risk score: an appraisal of its benefits and limitations.American Heart Hospital Journal, 5(2):91–96, 2007

    2007

  30. [38]

    Densely connected convolutional networks

    Gao Huang, Zhuang Liu, Laurens Van Der Maaten, and Kilian Q Weinberger. Densely connected convolutional networks. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4700–4708, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    U-net based analysis of mri for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis.Neural Computing and Applications, 33:13587–13599, 2021

    Zhonghao Fan, Johann Li, Liang Zhang, Guangming Zhu, Ping Li, Xiaoyuan Lu, Peiyi Shen, Syed Afaq Ali Shah, Mohammed Bennamoun, Tao Hua, et al. U-net based analysis of mri for alzheimer’s disease diagnosis.Neural Computing and Applications, 33:13587–13599, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Multistage diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease based on slice attention network

    Xiaolai Huo, Chung-Ming Own, Yue Zhou, Nannan Wu, and Jianwen Sun. Multistage diagnosis of alzheimer’s disease based on slice attention network. InInternational Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, pages 255–266. Springer, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    Multi-modal hypergraph diffusion network with dual prior for alzheimer classification

    Angelica I Aviles-Rivero, Christina Runkel, Nicolas Papadakis, Zoe Kourtzi, and Carola- Bibiane Schönlieb. Multi-modal hypergraph diffusion network with dual prior for alzheimer classification. InInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Interve...

    2022

  34. [42]

    Multi-modal masked autoencoders for medical vision-and-language pre-training

    Zhihong Chen, Yuhao Du, Jinpeng Hu, Yang Liu, Guanbin Li, Xiang Wan, and Tsung-Hui Chang. Multi-modal masked autoencoders for medical vision-and-language pre-training. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Large language models improve alzheimer’s disease diagnosis using multi-modality data

    Yingjie Feng, Xiaoyin Xu, Yueting Zhuang, and Min Zhang. Large language models improve alzheimer’s disease diagnosis using multi-modality data. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Medical Artificial Intelligence (MedAI), pages 61–66. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Improving the factual correctness of radiology report generation with semantic rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12186, 2022

    Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Pierre Chambon, Christian Bluethgen, Emily Tsai, Omar Almusa, and Curtis P Langlotz. Improving the factual correctness of radiology report generation with semantic rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12186, 2022

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Generating radiology reports via memory-driven transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.16056, 2020

    Zhihong Chen, Yan Song, Tsung-Hui Chang, and Xiang Wan. Generating radiology reports via memory-driven transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.16056, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Vision-language generative model for view-specific chest x-ray generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12172, 2023

    Hyungyung Lee, Da Young Lee, Wonjae Kim, Jin-Hwa Kim, Tackeun Kim, Jihang Kim, Leonard Sunwoo, and Edward Choi. Vision-language generative model for view-specific chest x-ray generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12172, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Xraygpt: Chest radiographs summarization using medical vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07971, 2023

    Omkar Thawkar, Abdelrahman Shaker, Sahal Shaji Mullappilly, Hisham Cholakkal, Rao Muhammad Anwer, Salman Khan, Jorma Laaksonen, and Fahad Shahbaz Khan. Xraygpt: Chest radiographs summarization using medical vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.07971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Llm-cxr: instruction-finetuned llm for cxr image understanding and generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11490, 2023

    Suhyeon Lee, Won Jun Kim, Jinho Chang, and Jong Chul Ye. Llm-cxr: instruction-finetuned llm for cxr image understanding and generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11490, 2023. Appendix A Implementation Details All experiments are conducted with GPT-4o and o1-mini as the core rea...

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Template-authoring stage.Four graduate annotators first examined the EHR dataset schema (202 tables spanning labs, imaging, demographics, etc.) and then spent about two months rewriting natural-language question templates into (i)SQL templatesfor queries that require only rela...

  42. [50]

    Is there ${attribute} in the ${object}?

    Inference stage.At run time, the system uses BM25 to retrieve the closest matching instances generated by templates, and asks ChatGPT to generate similar SQL or NeuralSQL to get answers for questions. Because the logical skeleton is fixed, any new question form or schema chang...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.