A safety-oriented hypothetico-deductive framework for AI-assisted differential diagnosis

Cathy Shyr; Chi Wing Ng; Donald Wright; Fan Ma; Huan He; Hua Xu; Kent McCann; Lee Schwamm; Lingfei Qian; Lucila Ohno-Machado

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 41 references

A safety-oriented hypothetico-deductive framework for AI-assisted differential diagnosis

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Restructuring diagnostic AI around safety logic cuts missed diagnoses by 26 points

desk verdict A well-engineered clinical AI framework with a real evaluation gap read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08038 v1 pith:LJNJD3BQ submitted 2026-07-09 cs.AI

Fan Ma , Mauro Giuffrè , Donald Wright , Kent McCann , Mark Iscoe , Lingfei Qian , Mingyang Jiang , Chi Wing Ng

show 7 more authors

Na Hong Huan He Cathy Shyr Qingyu Chen Lee Schwamm Lucila Ohno-Machado Hua Xu

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AI

keywords diagnosticerrordifferentialdiagnosislargelanguagemodelsclinicaldecisionsupportemergencymedicinemulti-agentsystemspatientsafetymust-not-missconditions

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

The paper argues that medical AI should stop treating diagnosis as a single-shot prediction problem and instead mirror how clinicians actually reason: generate multiple hypotheses, explicitly screen for dangerous conditions that must not be missed, verify each hypothesis against medical literature, and output a structured management plan. The authors built AegisDx, a framework that coordinates specialized LLM components through defined roles, evidence retrieval, and verification gates. On published case reports, it raised top-3 diagnostic accuracy by 8 to 17 percentage points over standalone LLMs. On emergency medicine cases, it improved coverage of must-not-miss conditions from 52% to 78%. In a blinded physician review of 43 real emergency department notes, physicians rated it safer than a raw GPT-5 baseline on a composite safety metric. The central claim is that the architectural commitment to safety-oriented reasoning, not the underlying model, drives the gains.

What carries the argument

AegisDx structures diagnosis into three stages: hypothesis generation (parallel specialist agents plus an independent warning agent for must-not-miss conditions), evidence gathering and verification (PubMed retrieval, diagnosis-specific reasoning, and a verification gate that ranks candidates by evidentiary support), and clinical management (action and management agents that translate the verified differential into next diagnostic steps and treatment plans). The framework enforces five constraints: separation of likely-diagnosis generation from must-not-miss screening, preservation of safety-critical alternatives through consolidation, retrieval-grounded reasoning per candidate, explicit pre

What would settle it

A prospective trial in which AegisDx and a standalone LLM are deployed alongside emergency physicians in a live ED, with outcome-linked metrics such as time-to-diagnosis, rate of missed must-not-miss conditions, and patient morbidity, showing no statistically significant safety advantage for the framework.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When the same foundation model is wrapped in a multi-stage reasoning pipeline that separates differential generation from must-not-miss screening, grounds each candidate in retrieved evidence, and requires verification before ranking, diagnostic accuracy and safety coverage improve consistently across backbones, specialties, and benchmarks. The framework outperforms standalone LLMs and agentic retrievers on top-3 accuracy and must-not-miss coverage, with the largest gains in emergency medicine settings where dangerous omissions are most consequential.

Load-bearing premise

The performance gains were measured primarily on curated case reports written with hindsight after the diagnosis was known, and the real-world evaluation involved only 43 cases with limited agreement among the three physician raters, so it remains unproven whether the safety improvements will persist in prospective use with incomplete histories and evolving clinical trajectories.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the framework's gains hold prospectively, emergency departments could deploy structured AI assistants that reduce missed dangerous diagnoses without requiring larger or more expensive foundation models.
The finding that a compact team of 3-5 specialist agents captures most of the benefit suggests a practical cost-accuracy tradeoff for clinical deployment, with each case costing under $1 and returning results in under a minute.
The separation of must-not-miss screening from primary diagnosis generation could be adopted in other high-stakes domains beyond medicine, such as structural engineering fault detection or legal risk assessment, where omission of rare catastrophic scenarios carries outsized cost.
The evidence-verification gate, which requires each diagnostic candidate to be tested against retrieved literature before final ranking, offers a template for making LLM reasoning auditable by clinicians, potentially easing regulatory pathways for clinical AI tools.

Reading between the lines

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

The observation that readability scores dropped while safety scores rose suggests an unresolved tension: the same evidence-linked reasoning that improves safety also burdens clinicians with longer outputs, implying that future clinical AI tools may need adaptive verbosity controls that compress reasoning during time-pressured shifts and expand it during review.
The plateau in performance beyond 3-5 specialist agents hints at a combinatorial ceiling for ensemble-based hypothesis generation, where coordination overhead and reasoning redundancy eventually offset diversity gains, a pattern that may generalize to other multi-agent reasoning architectures.
If the must-not-miss screening agent operates on a fixed guideline list, its recall is bounded by guideline completeness, suggesting that dynamic updating of must-not-miss lists from real-world diagnostic error data could further improve safety coverage beyond what static guidelines provide.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The big thing: AegisDx is a multi-agent LLM framework for differential diagnosis that explicitly separates must-not-miss screening, evidence retrieval, and verification into distinct pipeline stages. The safety-oriented design is the actual contribution, and the evaluation is more thorough than most LLM medical benchmarks—they run shared-backbone comparisons across four models, test on three benchmark sources, and include a blinded physician review on real ED notes. That physician review, despite being only 43 cases, is a genuine attempt to move beyond Top-k accuracy as the sole metric. Credit where due: the structured rubric with 12 items and the honest reporting of readability degradation show intellectual honesty. The scaling experiment (Appendix C) showing diminishing returns beyond 3–5 specialists is a useful practical finding. Now the soft spots. The stress-test concern about candidate-pool asymmetry is the most important issue. AegisDx pools candidates from 5 specialist agents plus a warning agent before ranking, while the standalone baseline (Prompt 13) generates only 3 diagnoses in a single pass. No ablation gives the baseline the same opportunity to generate broadly and then self-rank. Without that control, you cannot tell whether the gains come from the verification architecture (the thesis) or simply from considering more candidates initially (a trivial confound). This is a real gap, not a minor one. The 43-case real-world cohort is small, and the ICC is described as 'limited overall' without numerical values in the main text—though the authors do report it transparently in Figure 5. The composite safety score isn't clearly pre-registered. Training data contamination of public case reports is acknowledged but unaddressed. The readability hit is significant and directly undermines the bedside usability claim, though the authors flag it honestly. None of these are fatal individually, but the candidate-pool confound is load-bearing for the central architectural claim. This paper is for researchers building clinical AI systems and clinicians interested in safety-oriented diagnostic support. It deserves a serious referee who should demand the candidate-pool ablation as a condition of acceptance. The framework design is sound enough to warrant refinement, but the evaluation needs to isolate the architecture's contribution from the candidate-generation advantage.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents AegisDx, a safety-oriented multi-agent framework for AI-assisted differential diagnosis in acute care settings. The framework coordinates specialist LLM agents, an independent must-not-miss warning agent, evidence retrieval and verification gates, and structured management planning. The authors evaluate across three tiers: (1) literature-derived case reports from NEJM, JAMA, and Annals of Emergency Medicine, showing Top-3 accuracy gains of +7.8 to +17.1 percentage points over matched standalone LLMs; (2) a safety-focused evaluation on Annals of EM showing +26.0 percentage-point gain in must-not-miss coverage; and (3) a blinded physician evaluation on 43 real-world ED notes showing a composite safety score improvement from 4.31 to 4.55 (adjusted p=2.1×10⁻⁴) over GPT-5. The central thesis is that structuring diagnostic AI around safety-oriented reasoning functions, rather than optimizing raw predictive accuracy alone, yields safer and more transparent decision support.

Significance. The work addresses a clinically important problem—diagnostic error in emergency medicine—and proposes a principled, safety-oriented architecture rather than another benchmark-optimized model. The shared-backbone controlled comparisons (Figure 2b) are a methodological strength, as they isolate the framework's contribution from backbone model capability. The structured physician evaluation rubric (Appendix A) with 12 anchored items across diagnosis, reasoning, and management dimensions is a genuine contribution to evaluation methodology in this space. The honest reporting of usability limitations (lower readability scores) and the scaling analysis (Appendix C) showing diminishing returns beyond 3–5 specialists add credibility. The framework's emphasis on traceability, evidence grounding, and explicit must-not-miss screening aligns well with real clinical safety needs.

major comments (1)

The controlled comparisons in Figures 2b, 3, and 4 compare AegisDx (which pools candidates from K=5 specialist agents each generating diagnoses, plus an independent warning agent generating 3 must-not-miss conditions, then consolidates and ranks) against a standalone LLM prompted to produce only 3 diagnoses and 3 must-not-miss conditions in a single call (Prompt 13, Appendix B). This creates a candidate-pool asymmetry: AegisDx considers substantially more candidate diagnoses before ranking down to Top-3, and Top-k accuracy is mechanically easier when k is drawn from a larger candidate set. The paper includes no ablation where the standalone baseline is given the same opportunity to generate a broad differential (e.g., 15–20 candidates) and then self-rank the top 3. Without this control, one cannot distinguish whether gains come from the verification/reasoning architecture (the paper's中央论

minor comments (6)

§2.4: The composite safety score is defined as 'the mean of must-not-miss, most-likely diagnosis, and reasoning and treatment safety.' It is unclear whether this composite was pre-specified as the primary endpoint before data collection. Please clarify.
Figure 5: The ICC values are described as 'limited overall' but the specific ICC(2,1) point estimates and confidence intervals are embedded in a small panel that is difficult to read. Consider reporting these values in a table for clarity.
§4.1: The 30% development split (n=250) used for parameter selection, including the default specialist team size of K=5, overlaps with the public case-report datasets. Please clarify whether the development split is disjoint from the held-out 70% (n=582) used for final evaluation.
Prompt 1 (Appendix B) requests 'ten possible diagnosis results' but the JSON template shows only 5 items. This inconsistency should be corrected.
§2.2: The broad benchmark comparison (Figure 2a) includes heterogeneous system configurations with non-identical retrieval and tool setups. While the authors acknowledge this, the figure could be misread as a fair head-to-head comparison. Consider adding a visual cue or annotation indicating which systems have retrieval enabled.
The manuscript uses 'GPT-oss-120B' and 'GPT-oss-20B' (Figure 3b) without clear citation or specification of these models. Please provide references or model documentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected: the framework is an engineering architecture evaluated against external benchmarks, not a mathematical derivation chain that could reduce to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper presents AegisDx as a multi-agent diagnostic reasoning architecture evaluated against external benchmarks (NEJM, JAMA, Annals of EM case reports, and real-world YNHHS clinical notes). The derivation chain is architectural, not mathematical: (1) Specialist agents generate candidate diagnoses from the case description (Eq. 4); (2) a warning agent independently surfaces must-not-miss conditions from external physician-authored guidelines (Eq. 5); (3) a review agent consolidates and deduplicates (Eq. 6); (4) evidence is retrieved from PubMed (Eqs. 7-8); (5) reasoning and verification agents score candidates against retrieved evidence (Eqs. 9-11); (6) management plans are generated from the verified differential (Eqs. 13-15). No step in this chain is defined in terms of the evaluation metrics it claims to improve. The Top-k accuracy, Safety Coverage@K, and Safety Set Recall@K metrics (Eqs. 1-2) are computed against physician-curated reference standards external to the system. The 5-specialist default was selected on a 30% development split (standard practice, not circular). The physician evaluation rubric (Appendix A) uses externally defined Bond differential-diagnosis score-informed anchors. The skeptic's concern about candidate-pool asymmetry (AegisDx pools from 5 specialists vs. standalone baseline generating 3 diagnoses) is a valid methodological critique about confounding, but it is a correctness/experimental-design concern, not circularity: the evaluation metrics are not defined in terms of the framework's outputs, and the reference standards are independent. No self-citation chain is load-bearing for the central claim. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The framework introduces several agent roles with specific contracts. The warning agent has independent falsifiable evidence (safety coverage metrics). The verification and review agents do not have ablation studies isolating their contributions.

free parameters (3)

K (number of specialist agents) = 5
Selected on 30% development split of literature-derived case reports (§4.1, Appendix C). Standard hyperparameter selection, not circular.
Prompt templates (14 total) = See Appendix B
Hand-engineered prompts for each agent role. These are design choices that could be optimized but are fully specified.
Must-not-miss diagnosis guidelines = Not specified in detail
External clinical guidelines used by the warning agent (Prompt 4). The specific guideline source is referenced as {warning_diagnosis_guidelines} but the exact content is not provided in the paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption LLMs can generate clinically useful differential diagnoses from case descriptions
Foundational assumption underlying the entire framework. Supported by prior work (AMIE, GPT-4 medical benchmarks) cited in §1.
domain assumption Physician consensus on must-not-miss conditions is a valid reference standard for safety evaluation
Invoked in §4.2 for the Annals of EM safety evaluation. The paper acknowledges this is not outcome-linked (§3, Limitations, point 4).
domain assumption PubMed retrieval provides evidence sufficient to verify diagnostic reasoning
The evidence gathering and verification stage (§4.3, Stage 2) depends on PubMed articles being relevant and authoritative for each candidate diagnosis.
ad hoc to paper Retrospective case reports and clinical notes are adequate proxies for real-time diagnostic performance
The evaluation framework relies on this assumption, which the paper itself partially challenges in its Limitations section: 'Performance on these curated narratives may consequently overestimate performance during real-time diagnosis.'

invented entities (3)

Warning agent (independent must-not-miss screener) independent evidence
purpose: Separates safety-critical condition screening from likely-diagnosis generation
The Safety Coverage@K and Safety Set Recall@K metrics on Annals of EM provide falsifiable evidence of its contribution. The +26.0 percentage-point gain in Safety Coverage@3 is a measurable outcome.
Verification agent (evidence-grounded hypothesis testing)
purpose: Tests each candidate diagnosis against retrieved PubMed evidence before final ranking
No ablation isolates the verification agent's contribution from the rest of the pipeline. Its value is asserted but not independently demonstrated.
Review agent (differential consolidation)
purpose: Normalizes, deduplicates, and consolidates specialist and warning outputs
No ablation study removes this component to measure its marginal effect.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A safety-oriented hypothetico-deductive framework for AI-assisted differential diagnosis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LJNJD3BQ

@misc{pith2026260708038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A safety-oriented hypothetico-deductive framework for AI-assisted differential diagnosis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LJNJD3BQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08038}
}

read the original abstract

Diagnostic error is a major threat to patient safety, yet current large language model (LLM) systems often treat diagnosis as a one-shot prediction task, lacking safeguards against missed high-risk alternatives or rigorous verification of their reasoning. Here, we present AegisDx, a safety-oriented framework for hypothetico-deductive clinical reasoning. AegisDx coordinates specialized LLM components through role-specific contracts, structured intermediate outputs, evidence-retrieval interfaces, and verification gates to generate broad differential diagnoses, enforce explicit screening for dangerous "must-not-miss" conditions, verify reasoning against grounded medical evidence, and structure actionable next steps. We evaluated AegisDx across three layers. On literature-derived case reports from NEJM and JAMA, with GPT-oss-120B as the shared backbone, Top-3 diagnostic accuracy was 59.9% versus 52.1% for the standalone LLM on JAMA cases and 62.7% versus 51.4% on NEJM cases. On cases from Annals of Emergency Medicine, Top-3 accuracy was 85.7% versus 68.6%; against physician-consensus must-not-miss diagnosis sets, AegisDx captured at least one such condition among its top three diagnoses in 78.0% of cases versus 52.0%. In a blinded physician evaluation of 43 real-world emergency department notes from the Yale New Haven Health System compared against GPT-5, AegisDx improved the physician-rated composite safety score from 4.31 to 4.55 on a 5-point scale (adjusted p = 2.1x10^-4), with qualitative gains in must-not-miss identification and reasoning safety. Our findings suggest that engineering diagnostic AI as a safety-oriented reasoning framework, rather than optimizing raw predictive accuracy alone, can provide a safer, more transparent, and clinically meaningful layer of bedside decision support for acute care workflows.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

Global patient safety action plan 2021–2030: towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care, 2021

World Health Organization. Global patient safety action plan 2021–2030: towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care, 2021

work page 2021
[2]

Technical series on safer primary care: Diagnostic errors, 2016

World Health Organization. Technical series on safer primary care: Diagnostic errors, 2016

work page 2016
[3]

Andrew Taylor, Rohit B

R. Andrew Taylor, Rohit B. Sangal, Moira E. Smith, Adrian D. Haimovich, Adam Rodman, Mark S. Iscoe, Suresh K. Pavuluri, Christian Rose, Alexander T. Janke, Donald S. Wright, Vimig Socrates, and Arwen Declan. Leveraging artificial intelligence to reduce diagnostic errors in emergency medicine: Challenges, opportunities, and future directions.Academic Emerg...

work page 2025
[4]

Mark L. Graber. The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine.BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(Suppl 2):ii21–ii27, 2013

work page 2013
[5]

Saber Tehrani, Hyun J

Ali S. Saber Tehrani, Hyun J. Lee, Simon C. Mathews, Aaron Shore, Michael A. Makary, Peter J. Pronovost, and David E. Newman-Toker. 25-year summary of us malpractice claims for diagnostic errors 1986–2010: an analysis from the national practitioner data bank.BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(8):672–680, 2013

work page 1986
[6]

Schiff, Omar Hasan, Soe Kim, Robert Abrams, Karen Cosby, Barbara L

Gordon D. Schiff, Omar Hasan, Soe Kim, Robert Abrams, Karen Cosby, Barbara L. Lambert, Arthur S. Elstein, Susan Hasler, Mamy L. Kabongo, Natasha Krosnjar, Richard Odwazny, Marcin F. Wisniewski, and Robert A. McNutt. Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors.Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(20):1881–1887, 2009

work page 2009
[7]

Lin, Ryan C

Matthew P. Lin, Ryan C. Burke, Aimee K. Sabbatini, et al. Potential diagnostic error for emergency conditions, mortality, and healthy days at home.JAMA Network Open, 8(6):e2516400, 2025

work page 2025
[8]

Large language models encode clinical knowledge.Nature, 620(7972):172–180, 2023

Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge.Nature, 620(7972):172–180, 2023

work page 2023

Show all 41 references

[9]

Sara Mahdavi, Sushant Prakash, Anupam Pathak, Christopher Semturs, Shwetak N

Daniel McDuff, Mike Schaekermann, Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Amy Wang, Jake Garrison, Karan Singhal, Yash Sharma, Shekoofeh Azizi, Kavita Kulkarni, Le Hou, Yong Cheng, Yun Liu, S. Sara Mahdavi, Sushant Prakash, Anupam Pathak, Christopher Semturs, Shwetak N. Patel, Dale R. Webster, E...

2025
[10]

Krumholz, Jure Leskovec, Eric J

Michael Moor, Oishi Banerjee, Zahra F H Abad, Harlan M. Krumholz, Jure Leskovec, Eric J. Topol, and Pranav Rajpurkar. Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence.Nature, 616:259–265, 2023

2023
[11]

Miller, Harry E

Randolph A. Miller, Harry E. Pople, Jr., and Jack D. Myers. INTERNIST-1, an experimental computer- based diagnostic consultant for general internal medicine.New England Journal of Medicine, 307(8):468– 476, 1982

1982
[12]

Octo Barnett, James J

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
[13]

Melton, and Rui Zhang

Shuang Zhou, Jiashuo Wang, Zidu Xu, Song Wang, David Brauer, Lindsay Welton, Jacob Cogan, Yuen-Hei Chung, Lei Tian, Zaifu Zhan, Yu Hou, Mingquan Lin, Genevieve B. Melton, and Rui Zhang. Uncertainty-aware large language models for explainable disease diagnosis.npj Digital Medic...

2025
[14]

Healthcare agent: eliciting the power of large language models for medical consultation.npj Artificial Intelligence, 1(1):24, 2025

Zhiyao Ren, Yibing Zhan, Baosheng Yu, Liang Ding, Pingbo Xu, and Dacheng Tao. Healthcare agent: eliciting the power of large language models for medical consultation.npj Artificial Intelligence, 1(1):24, 2025. |15

2025
[15]

Mdagents: An adaptive collaboration of llms for medical decision-making

Yubin Kim, Chanwoo Park, Hyewon Jeong, Yik Siu Chan, Xuhai Xu, Daniel McDuff, Hyeonhoon Lee, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Cynthia Breazeal, and Hae Won Park. Mdagents: An adaptive collaboration of llms for medical decision-making. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38 (N...

2024
[16]

Macd: Multi-agent clinical diagnosis with self-learned knowledge for llm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20067, 2025

Wenliang Li, Rui Yan, Xu Zhang, Li Chen, Hongji Zhu, Jing Zhao, Junjun Li, Mengru Li, Wei Cao, Zihang Jiang, Wei Wei, Kun Zhang, and Shaohua Kevin Zhou. Macd: Multi-agent clinical diagnosis with self-learned knowledge for llm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20067, 2025

2025
[17]

End-to-end agentic rag system training for traceable diagnostic reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15746, 2025

Qiaoyu Zheng, Yuze Sun, Chaoyi Wu, Weike Zhao, Pengcheng Qiu, Ge Wang, Yongguo Yu, Kun Sun, Jian Zhang, Yanfeng Wang, Ya Zhang, and Weidi Xie. End-to-end agentic rag system training for traceable diagnostic reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15746, 2025. Project page: https:/...

2025
[18]

Lungren, Bay Gross, Peter Hames, Mustafa Suleyman, Dominic King, and Eric Horvitz

Harsha Nori, Mayank Daswani, Christopher Kelly, Scott Lundberg, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Marc Wilson, Xiaoxuan Liu, Viknesh Sounderajah, Jonathan M Carlson, Matthew P. Lungren, Bay Gross, Peter Hames, Mustafa Suleyman, Dominic King, and Eric Horvitz. Sequential diagnosis with lang...

2025 arXiv
[19]

Ai agents in clinical medicine: A systematic review.medRxiv, 2025

Eyal Klang, Girish N Nadkarni, Benjamin S Glicksberg, Mahmud Omar, and Alon Gorenshtein. Ai agents in clinical medicine: A systematic review.medRxiv, 2025

2025
[20]

The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2015

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.Improving Diagnosis in Health Care. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2015

2015
[21]

Elstein, Lee S

Arthur S. Elstein, Lee S. Shulman, and Sarah A. Sprafka.Medical Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1978

1978
[22]

The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

Andrea Grattafiori et al. The llama 3 herd of models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024

2024 arXiv
[23]

Introducing gpt-4.1 in the api.https://openai.com/index/gpt-4-1/, April 2025

OpenAI. Introducing gpt-4.1 in the api.https://openai.com/index/gpt-4-1/, April 2025. Announces GPT-4.1, GPT-4.1 mini, and GPT-4.1 nano; published 2025-04-14

2025
[24]

Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

Qwen Team. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

2025 arXiv
[25]

Sellergren et al

A. Sellergren et al. Medgemma technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05201, 2025

2025 arXiv
[26]

Huatuogpt-o1, towards medical complex reasoning with llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18925, 2024

Junying Chen et al. Huatuogpt-o1, towards medical complex reasoning with llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18925, 2024

2024 arXiv
[27]

An agentic system for rare disease diagnosis with traceable reasoning.Nature, 651(8106):775–784, 2026

Weike Zhao, Chaoyi Wu, Yanjie Fan, Pengcheng Qiu, Xiaoman Zhang, Yuze Sun, Xiao Zhou, Shuju Zhang, Yu Peng, Yanfeng Wang, Xin Sun, Ya Zhang, Yongguo Yu, Kun Sun, and Weidi Xie. An agentic system for rare disease diagnosis with traceable reasoning.Nature, 651(8106):775–784, 2026

2026
[28]

Annals of emergency medicine, 2026

Elsevier. Annals of emergency medicine, 2026. ScienceDirect journal homepage. Accessed March 11, 2026

2026
[29]

Introducing gpt-5.https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5/, August 2025

OpenAI. Introducing gpt-5.https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5/, August 2025

2025
[30]

Bond, Lisa M

William F. Bond, Lisa M. Schwartz, Kelly R. Weaver, Diane Levick, Michelle Giuliano, and Mark L. Graber. Differential diagnosis generators: an evaluation of currently available computer programs.Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(2):213–219, 2012

2012
[31]

Cassini, Rory J

Cathy Shyr, Thomas A. Cassini, Rory J. Tinker, Kevin W. Byram, Peter J. Embí, Lisa Bastarache, Josh F. Peterson, Hua Xu, and Rizwan Hamid. Large language models for rare disease diagnosis at the undiagnosed diseases network.JAMA Network Open, 8(8):e2528538, aug 2025

2025
[32]

diagnosis

J. McEntyre and D. Lipman. Pubmed: bridging the information gap.CMAJ, 164(9):1317–1319, 2001. |16 A Physician Evaluation Rubric Rubric anchors.Each item used explicit five-level anchor definitions, with higher scores indicating better clinical quality, usefulness, and safety. ...

2001
[33]

The final warning diagnoses must be copied verbatim from the guideline list above
[34]

Choose diagnoses from distinct disease categories; do not select three subtypes of the same condition
[35]

warning_diagnosis

Prioritize high-mortality, time-sensitive conditions. Prompt Prompt 5. User Prompt for Warning Diagnosis Patient case: {case_description} Briefly reason what the most dangerous diagnostic categories are for this presentation. Then pick exactly 3 diagnoses verbatim from the all...

2020
[36]

List the top 3 diagnostic hypotheses for the patient case
[37]

List the top 3 must-not-miss diagnoses
[38]

Provide reasoning for each diagnosis
[39]

Output should be in markdown format with the following 4 sections:

Provide the management plan for this patient case. Output should be in markdown format with the following 4 sections:
[40]

Top 3 Must-not-miss Diagnoses
[41]

Y” for yes or “N

Management The patient case is: {case_description} Output: |24 1 3 5 10 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Mostly plateauing beyond 5 specialists Top-1 accuracy 1 3 5 10 Default Top-2 accuracy 1 3 5 10 Top-3 accuracy Diagnostic accuracy (%) Number of specialist agents GPT-oss-120B GPT-4....

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Global patient safety action plan 2021–2030: towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care, 2021

World Health Organization. Global patient safety action plan 2021–2030: towards eliminating avoidable harm in health care, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Technical series on safer primary care: Diagnostic errors, 2016

World Health Organization. Technical series on safer primary care: Diagnostic errors, 2016

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Andrew Taylor, Rohit B

R. Andrew Taylor, Rohit B. Sangal, Moira E. Smith, Adrian D. Haimovich, Adam Rodman, Mark S. Iscoe, Suresh K. Pavuluri, Christian Rose, Alexander T. Janke, Donald S. Wright, Vimig Socrates, and Arwen Declan. Leveraging artificial intelligence to reduce diagnostic errors in emergency medicine: Challenges, opportunities, and future directions.Academic Emerg...

work page 2025

[4] [4]

Mark L. Graber. The incidence of diagnostic error in medicine.BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(Suppl 2):ii21–ii27, 2013

work page 2013

[5] [5]

Saber Tehrani, Hyun J

Ali S. Saber Tehrani, Hyun J. Lee, Simon C. Mathews, Aaron Shore, Michael A. Makary, Peter J. Pronovost, and David E. Newman-Toker. 25-year summary of us malpractice claims for diagnostic errors 1986–2010: an analysis from the national practitioner data bank.BMJ Quality & Safety, 22(8):672–680, 2013

work page 1986

[6] [6]

Schiff, Omar Hasan, Soe Kim, Robert Abrams, Karen Cosby, Barbara L

Gordon D. Schiff, Omar Hasan, Soe Kim, Robert Abrams, Karen Cosby, Barbara L. Lambert, Arthur S. Elstein, Susan Hasler, Mamy L. Kabongo, Natasha Krosnjar, Richard Odwazny, Marcin F. Wisniewski, and Robert A. McNutt. Diagnostic error in medicine: analysis of 583 physician-reported errors.Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(20):1881–1887, 2009

work page 2009

[7] [7]

Lin, Ryan C

Matthew P. Lin, Ryan C. Burke, Aimee K. Sabbatini, et al. Potential diagnostic error for emergency conditions, mortality, and healthy days at home.JAMA Network Open, 8(6):e2516400, 2025

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Large language models encode clinical knowledge.Nature, 620(7972):172–180, 2023

Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge.Nature, 620(7972):172–180, 2023

work page 2023