EGIP: An Evidence-Grounded Interaction Protocol for Clinical Agents
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-adjacent · Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Interactive clinical agents acquire evidence through patient dialogue and diagnostic examinations, yet their performance also depends on how the interaction environment exposes information, available actions, and examination results. When these conditions are implicit or inconsistently controlled, final-answer accuracy can conflate diagnostic reasoning with the effects of the interaction protocol. We propose the \textbf{E}vidence-\textbf{G}rounded \textbf{I}nteraction \textbf{P}rotocol (EGIP), which enforces role-specific information boundaries, exposes diagnostic actions without revealing their results, retrieves examination results from stored clinical records, and organizes acquired evidence for final decision-making. By separating evidence acquisition from terminal prediction, EGIP enables different decision strategies to operate on the same observations. We evaluate EGIP across two clinical-agent frameworks, five datasets, and six language models. EGIP improves diagnostic accuracy over native baselines across all primary comparisons. A clinician review further shows that the proportion of automatically scored correct responses jointly judged evidence-supported rises from 10.20\% to 36.55\%. These findings support the effectiveness of EGIP as a unified interaction protocol for improving clinical-agent performance through controlled evidence access and acquisition.
Results and benchmarks
Interactive clinical agents acquire evidence through patient dialogue and diagnostic examinations, yet their performance also depends on how the interaction environment exposes information, available actions, and examination results.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
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.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.