Skip to content
← Back to explorer

A Multi-Agent Framework for Medical AI: Leveraging Fine-Tuned GPT, LLaMA, and DeepSeek R1 for Evidence-Based and Bias-Aware Clinical Query Processing

Naeimeh Nourmohammadi, Md Meem Hossain, The Anh Han, Safina Showkat Ara, Zia Ush Shamszaman · Feb 15, 2026 · Citations: 0

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) show promise for healthcare question answering, but clinical use is limited by weak verification, insufficient evidence grounding, and unreliable confidence signalling. We propose a multi-agent medical QA framework that combines complementary LLMs with evidence retrieval, uncertainty estimation, and bias checks to improve answer reliability. Our approach has two phases. First, we fine-tune three representative LLM families (GPT, LLaMA, and DeepSeek R1) on MedQuAD-derived medical QA data (20k+ question-answer pairs across multiple NIH domains) and benchmark generation quality. DeepSeek R1 achieves the strongest scores (ROUGE-1 0.536 +- 0.04; ROUGE-2 0.226 +-0.03; BLEU 0.098 -+ 0.018) and substantially outperforms the specialised biomedical baseline BioGPT in zero-shot evaluation. Second, we implement a modular multi-agent pipeline in which a Clinical Reasoning agent (fine-tuned LLaMA) produces structured explanations, an Evidence Retrieval agent queries PubMed to ground responses in recent literature, and a Refinement agent (DeepSeek R1) improves clarity and factual consistency; an optional human validation path is triggered for high-risk or high-uncertainty cases. Safety mechanisms include Monte Carlo dropout and perplexity-based uncertainty scoring, plus lexical and sentiment-based bias detection supported by LIME/SHAP-based analyses. In evaluation, the full system achieves 87% accuracy with relevance around 0.80, and evidence augmentation reduces uncertainty (perplexity 4.13) compared to base responses, with mean end-to-end latency of 36.5 seconds under the reported configuration. Overall, the results indicate that agent specialisation and verification layers can mitigate key single-model limitations and provide a practical, extensible design for evidence-based and bias-aware medical AI.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper has direct human-feedback and/or evaluation protocol signal and is likely useful for eval pipeline design.

Eval-Fit Score

25/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

High-confidence candidate

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: Medicine
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.55
  • Flags: ambiguous

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

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

Reported Metrics

accuracybleurougeperplexitylatencyrelevance

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

We propose a multi-agent medical QA framework that combines complementary LLMs with evidence retrieval, uncertainty estimation, and bias checks to improve answer reliability. HFEPX signals include Automatic Metrics, Multi Agent with confidence 0.55. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 2, 2026, 10:24 PM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • We propose a multi-agent medical QA framework that combines complementary LLMs with evidence retrieval, uncertainty estimation, and bias checks to improve answer reliability.
  • DeepSeek R1 achieves the strongest scores (ROUGE-1 0.536 +- 0.04; ROUGE-2 0.226 +-0.03; BLEU 0.098 -+ 0.018) and substantially outperforms the specialised biomedical baseline…

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Validate metric comparability (accuracy, bleu, rouge).

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We propose a multi-agent medical QA framework that combines complementary LLMs with evidence retrieval, uncertainty estimation, and bias checks to improve answer reliability.
  • DeepSeek R1 achieves the strongest scores (ROUGE-1 0.536 +- 0.04; ROUGE-2 0.226 +-0.03; BLEU 0.098 -+ 0.018) and substantially outperforms the specialised biomedical baseline BioGPT in zero-shot evaluation.
  • In evaluation, the full system achieves 87% accuracy with relevance around 0.80, and evidence augmentation reduces uncertainty (perplexity 4.13) compared to base responses, with mean end-to-end latency of 36.5 seconds under the reported…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We propose a multi-agent medical QA framework that combines complementary LLMs with evidence retrieval, uncertainty estimation, and bias checks to improve answer reliability.
  • DeepSeek R1 achieves the strongest scores (ROUGE-1 0.536 +- 0.04; ROUGE-2 0.226 +-0.03; BLEU 0.098 -+ 0.018) and substantially outperforms the specialised biomedical baseline BioGPT in zero-shot evaluation.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • 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.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy, bleu, rouge, perplexity

Related Papers

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

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.