ClinicalAgents: Multi-Agent Orchestration for Clinical Decision Making with Dual-Memory
Zhuohan Ge, Haoyang Li, Yubo Wang, Nicole Hu, Chen Jason Zhang, Qing Li
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in healthcare, they often struggle with the complex, non-linear reasoning required for accurate clinical diagnosis. Existing methods typically rely on static, linear mappings from symptoms to diagnoses, failing to capture the iterative, hypothesis-driven reasoning inherent to human clinicians. To bridge this gap, we introduce ClinicalAgents, a novel multi ...
-agent framework designed to simulate the cognitive workflow of expert clinicians. Unlike rigid sequential chains, ClinicalAgents employs a dynamic orchestration mechanism modeled as a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) process. This allows an Orchestrator to iteratively generate hypotheses, actively verify evidence, and trigger backtracking when critical information is missing. Central to this framework is a Dual-Memory architecture: a mutable Working Memory that maintains the evolving patient state for context-aware reasoning, and a static Experience Memory that retrieves clinical guidelines and historical cases via an active feedback loop. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ClinicalAgents achieves state-of-the-art performance, significantly enhancing both diagnostic accuracy and explainability compared to strong single-agent and multi-agent baselines.
Results & Benchmarks
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in healthcare, they often struggle with the complex, non-linear reasoning required for accurate clinical diagnosis.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Reproduction readiness
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, AI Agents
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.