Skip to content
← Back to explorer

One Panel Does Not Fit All: Case-Adaptive Multi-Agent Deliberation for Clinical Prediction

Yuxing Lu, Yushuhong Lin, Jason Zhang · Mar 31, 2026 · Citations: 0

Multi Agent
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Large language models applied to clinical prediction exhibit case-level heterogeneity: simple cases yield consistent outputs, while complex cases produce divergent predictions under minor prompt changes. Existing single-agent strategies sample from one role-conditioned distribution, and multi-agent frameworks use fixed roles with flat majority voting, discarding the diagnostic signal in disagreement. We propose CAMP (Case-Adaptive Multi-agent Panel), where an attending-physician agent dynamically assembles a specialist panel tailored to each case's diagnostic uncertainty. Each specialist evaluates candidates via three-valued voting (KEEP/REFUSE/NEUTRAL), enabling principled abstention outside one's expertise. A hybrid router directs each diagnosis through strong consensus, fallback to the attending physician's judgment, or evidence-based arbitration that weighs argument quality over vote counts. On diagnostic prediction and brief hospital course generation from MIMIC-IV across four LLM backbones, CAMP consistently outperforms strong baselines while consuming fewer tokens than most competing multi-agent methods, with voting records and arbitration traces offering transparent decision audits.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language models applied to clinical prediction exhibit case-level heterogeneity: simple cases yield consistent outputs, while complex cases produce divergent predictions under minor prompt changes."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Large language models applied to clinical prediction exhibit case-level heterogeneity: simple cases yield consistent outputs, while complex cases produce divergent predictions under minor prompt changes."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language models applied to clinical prediction exhibit case-level heterogeneity: simple cases yield consistent outputs, while complex cases produce divergent predictions under minor prompt changes."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large language models applied to clinical prediction exhibit case-level heterogeneity: simple cases yield consistent outputs, while complex cases produce divergent predictions under minor prompt changes."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Large language models applied to clinical prediction exhibit case-level heterogeneity: simple cases yield consistent outputs, while complex cases produce divergent predictions under minor prompt changes."

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"Each specialist evaluates candidates via three-valued voting (KEEP/REFUSE/NEUTRAL), enabling principled abstention outside one's expertise."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Expertise required: Medicine

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large language models applied to clinical prediction exhibit case-level heterogeneity: simple cases yield consistent outputs, while complex cases produce divergent predictions under minor prompt changes.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Large language models applied to clinical prediction exhibit case-level heterogeneity: simple cases yield consistent outputs, while complex cases produce divergent predictions under minor prompt changes.
  • Existing single-agent strategies sample from one role-conditioned distribution, and multi-agent frameworks use fixed roles with flat majority voting, discarding the diagnostic signal in disagreement.
  • We propose CAMP (Case-Adaptive Multi-agent Panel), where an attending-physician agent dynamically assembles a specialist panel tailored to each case's diagnostic uncertainty.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Existing single-agent strategies sample from one role-conditioned distribution, and multi-agent frameworks use fixed roles with flat majority voting, discarding the diagnostic signal in disagreement.
  • We propose CAMP (Case-Adaptive Multi-agent Panel), where an attending-physician agent dynamically assembles a specialist panel tailored to each case's diagnostic uncertainty.
  • On diagnostic prediction and brief hospital course generation from MIMIC-IV across four LLM backbones, CAMP consistently outperforms strong baselines while consuming fewer tokens than most competing multi-agent methods, with voting records…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Existing single-agent strategies sample from one role-conditioned distribution, and multi-agent frameworks use fixed roles with flat majority voting, discarding the diagnostic signal in disagreement.
  • We propose CAMP (Case-Adaptive Multi-agent Panel), where an attending-physician agent dynamically assembles a specialist panel tailored to each case's diagnostic uncertainty.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now