Skip to content
← Back to explorer

OMGs: A multi-agent system supporting MDT decision-making across the ovarian tumour care continuum

Yangyang Zhang, Zilong Wang, Jianbo Xu, Yongqi Chen, Chu Han, Zhihao Zhang, Shuai Liu, Hui Li, Huiping Zhang, Ziqi Liu, Jiaxin Chen, Jun Zhu, Zheng Feng, Hao Wen, Xingzhu Ju, Yanping Zhong, Yunqiu Zhang, Jie Duan, Jun Li, Dongsheng Li, Weijie Wang, Haiyan Zhu, Wei Jiang, Xiaohua Wu, Shuo Wang, Haiming Li, Qinhao Guo · Feb 14, 2026 · Citations: 0

Abstract

Ovarian tumour management has increasingly relied on multidisciplinary tumour board (MDT) deliberation to address treatment complexity and disease heterogeneity. However, most patients worldwide lack access to timely expert consensus, particularly in resource-constrained centres where MDT resources are scarce or unavailable. Here we present OMGs (Ovarian tumour Multidisciplinary intelligent aGent System), a multi-agent AI framework where domain-specific agents deliberate collaboratively to integrate multidisciplinary evidence and generate MDT-style recommendations with transparent rationales. To systematically evaluate MDT recommendation quality, we developed SPEAR (Safety, Personalization, Evidence, Actionability, Robustness) and validated OMGs across diverse clinical scenarios spanning the care continuum. In multicentre re-evaluation, OMGs achieved performance comparable to expert MDT consensus ($4.45 \pm 0.30$ versus $4.53 \pm 0.23$), with higher Evidence scores (4.57 versus 3.92). In prospective multicentre evaluation (59 patients), OMGs demonstrated high concordance with routine MDT decisions. Critically, in paired human-AI studies, OMGs most substantially enhanced clinicians' recommendations in Evidence and Robustness, the dimensions most compromised when multidisciplinary expertise is unavailable. These findings suggest that multi-agent deliberative systems can achieve performance comparable to expert MDT consensus, with potential to expand access to specialized oncology expertise in resource-limited settings.

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

40/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

High-confidence candidate

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Expert Verification
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: Medicine
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.50
  • Flags: None

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

Deterministic synthesis

Here we present OMGs (Ovarian tumour Multidisciplinary intelligent aGent System), a multi-agent AI framework where domain-specific agents deliberate collaboratively to integrate multidisciplinary evidence and generate MDT-style… HFEPX signals include Expert Verification, Multi Agent with confidence 0.50. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 2, 2026, 10:47 PM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Here we present OMGs (Ovarian tumour Multidisciplinary intelligent aGent System), a multi-agent AI framework where domain-specific agents deliberate collaboratively to integrate…
  • To systematically evaluate MDT recommendation quality, we developed SPEAR (Safety, Personalization, Evidence, Actionability, Robustness) and validated OMGs across diverse clinical…

Researcher Actions

  • Compare its human-feedback setup against pairwise and rubric hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

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

  • Here we present OMGs (Ovarian tumour Multidisciplinary intelligent aGent System), a multi-agent AI framework where domain-specific agents deliberate collaboratively to integrate multidisciplinary evidence and generate MDT-style…
  • To systematically evaluate MDT recommendation quality, we developed SPEAR (Safety, Personalization, Evidence, Actionability, Robustness) and validated OMGs across diverse clinical scenarios spanning the care continuum.
  • In multicentre re-evaluation, OMGs achieved performance comparable to expert MDT consensus (4.45 \pm 0.30 versus 4.53 \pm 0.23), with higher Evidence scores (4.57 versus 3.92).

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Here we present OMGs (Ovarian tumour Multidisciplinary intelligent aGent System), a multi-agent AI framework where domain-specific agents deliberate collaboratively to integrate multidisciplinary evidence and generate MDT-style…
  • To systematically evaluate MDT recommendation quality, we developed SPEAR (Safety, Personalization, Evidence, Actionability, Robustness) and validated OMGs across diverse clinical scenarios spanning the care continuum.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Expert Verification

  • 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.

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