A Multi-Agent Approach to Neurological Clinical Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.14063v1
• Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2025 14:52:27 GMT
• Title: A Multi-Agent Approach to Neurological Clinical Reasoning
• Authors: Moran Sorka, Alon Gorenshtein, Dvir Aran, Shahar Shelly,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in medical domains, but their ability to handle specialized neurological reasoning requires systematic evaluation.<n>We developed a benchmark using 305 questions from Israeli Board Certification Exams in Neurology.<n>We evaluated ten LLMs using base models, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and a novel multi-agent system.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in medical domains, but their ability to handle specialized neurological reasoning requires systematic evaluation. We developed a comprehensive benchmark using 305 questions from Israeli Board Certification Exams in Neurology, classified along three complexity dimensions: factual knowledge depth, clinical concept integration, and reasoning complexity. We evaluated ten LLMs using base models, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and a novel multi-agent system. Results showed significant performance variation. OpenAI-o1 achieved the highest base performance (90.9% accuracy), while specialized medical models performed poorly (52.9% for Meditron-70B). RAG provided modest benefits but limited effectiveness on complex reasoning questions. In contrast, our multi-agent framework, decomposing neurological reasoning into specialized cognitive functions including question analysis, knowledge retrieval, answer synthesis, and validation, achieved dramatic improvements, especially for mid-range models. The LLaMA 3.3-70B-based agentic system reached 89.2% accuracy versus 69.5% for its base model, with substantial gains on level 3 complexity questions. The multi-agent approach transformed inconsistent subspecialty performance into uniform excellence, addressing neurological reasoning challenges that persisted with RAG enhancement. We validated our approach using an independent dataset of 155 neurological cases from MedQA. Results confirm that structured multi-agent approaches designed to emulate specialized cognitive processes significantly enhance complex medical reasoning, offering promising directions for AI assistance in challenging clinical contexts.

Related papers

• MMedExpert-R1: Strengthening Multimodal Medical Reasoning via Domain-Specific Adaptation and Clinical Guideline Reinforcement [63.82954136824963]
  Medical Vision-Language Models excel at perception tasks with complex clinical reasoning required in real-world scenarios.<n>We propose a novel reasoning MedVLM that addresses these challenges through domain-specific adaptation and guideline reinforcement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T02:32:07Z)
• The Illusion of Clinical Reasoning: A Benchmark Reveals the Pervasive Gap in Vision-Language Models for Clinical Competency [38.68458713626548]
  Current benchmarks fail to capture the integrated, multimodal reasoning essential for real-world patient care.<n>This benchmark assesses models across 7 tasks that mirror the clinical reasoning pathway.<n>Current artificial intelligence models are not yet clinically competent for complex, multimodal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-25T03:33:22Z)
• Med-RewardBench: Benchmarking Reward Models and Judges for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models [57.73472878679636]
  We introduce Med-RewardBench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate medical reward models and judges.<n>Med-RewardBench features a multimodal dataset spanning 13 organ systems and 8 clinical departments, with 1,026 expert-annotated cases.<n>A rigorous three-step process ensures high-quality evaluation data across six clinically critical dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:58:39Z)
• Medical Reasoning in the Era of LLMs: A Systematic Review of Enhancement Techniques and Applications [59.721265428780946]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine have enabled impressive capabilities, yet a critical gap remains in their ability to perform systematic, transparent, and verifiable reasoning.<n>This paper provides the first systematic review of this emerging field.<n>We propose a taxonomy of reasoning enhancement techniques, categorized into training-time strategies and test-time mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T14:41:31Z)
• Clinical Semantic Intelligence (CSI): Emulating the Cognitive Framework of the Expert Clinician for Comprehensive Oral Disease Diagnosis [0.0]
  We develop a novel artificial intelligence framework that diagnoses 118 different oral diseases.<n>Our core hypothesis is that moving beyond simple pattern matching to emulate expert reasoning is critical to building clinically useful diagnostic aids.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-20T22:30:01Z)
• An Agentic System for Rare Disease Diagnosis with Traceable Reasoning [58.78045864541539]
  We introduce DeepRare, the first rare disease diagnosis agentic system powered by a large language model (LLM)<n>DeepRare generates ranked diagnostic hypotheses for rare diseases, each accompanied by a transparent chain of reasoning.<n>The system demonstrates exceptional diagnostic performance among 2,919 diseases, achieving 100% accuracy for 1013 diseases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-25T13:42:26Z)
• Gazal-R1: Achieving State-of-the-Art Medical Reasoning with Parameter-Efficient Two-Stage Training [0.0]
  We present Gazal-R1, a 32-billion- parameter language model that achieves state-of-the-art performance in medical reasoning.<n>Our model demonstrates that strategic training can enable mid-sized models to outperform significantly larger counterparts in specialized domains.<n>Gazal-R1 achieves exceptional performance across medical benchmarks, scoring 87.1% on MedQA, 81.6% on MMLU Pro (Medical), and 79.6% on PubMedQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T09:44:21Z)
• ChestX-Reasoner: Advancing Radiology Foundation Models with Reasoning through Step-by-Step Verification [57.22053411719822]
  ChestX-Reasoner is a radiology diagnosis MLLM designed to leverage process supervision mined directly from clinical reports.<n>Our two-stage training framework combines supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning guided by process rewards to better align model reasoning with clinical standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T16:48:23Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• LLM-MedQA: Enhancing Medical Question Answering through Case Studies in Large Language Models [18.6994780408699]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) face significant challenges in medical question answering.<n>We propose a novel approach incorporating similar case generation within a multi-agent medical question-answering system.<n>Our method capitalizes on the model's inherent medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities, eliminating the need for additional training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T19:55:45Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.