BLUEmed: Retrieval-Augmented Multi-Agent Debate for Clinical Error Detection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10389v1
• Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2026 00:30:31 GMT
• Title: BLUEmed: Retrieval-Augmented Multi-Agent Debate for Clinical Error Detection
• Abstract summary: We introduce BLUEmed, a multi-agent debate framework augmented with hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)<n>Bluemed decomposes each clinical note into focused sub-queries, retrieves source-partitioned evidence through dense, sparse, and online retrieval, and assigns two domain expert agents distinct knowledge bases to produce independent analyses.<n>We evaluate BLUEmed on a clinical terminology substitution detection benchmark under both zero-shot and few-shot prompting with multiple backbone models spanning proprietary and open-source families.
• Score: 1.620466780389133
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Terminology substitution errors in clinical notes, where one medical term is replaced by a linguistically valid but clinically different term, pose a persistent challenge for automated error detection in healthcare. We introduce BLUEmed, a multi-agent debate framework augmented with hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) that combines evidence-grounded reasoning with multi-perspective verification for clinical error detection. BLUEmed decomposes each clinical note into focused sub-queries, retrieves source-partitioned evidence through dense, sparse, and online retrieval, and assigns two domain expert agents distinct knowledge bases to produce independent analyses; when the experts disagree, a structured counter-argumentation round and cross-source adjudication resolve the conflict, followed by a cascading safety layer that filters common false-positive patterns. We evaluate BLUEmed on a clinical terminology substitution detection benchmark under both zero-shot and few-shot prompting with multiple backbone models spanning proprietary and open-source families. Experimental results show that BLUEmed achieves the best accuracy (69.13%), ROC-AUC (74.45%), and PR-AUC (72.44%) under few-shot prompting, outperforming both single-agent RAG and debate-only baselines. Further analyses across six backbone models and two prompting strategies confirm that retrieval augmentation and structured debate are complementary, and that the framework benefits most from models with sufficient instruction-following and clinical language understanding.

Related papers

• Sparse Multi-Stage Expert-Agent Routing for Complex Clinical Reasoning [8.604005197463147]
  We propose Sparse Multi-Stage Expert-Agent, a language-based clinical reasoning framework that models diagnosis as a stage-wise routing process.<n>Given progressively available clinical evidence, the framework maintains an evolving case state and adaptively activates a sparse set of medical expert agents.<n>On reconstructed multi-stage cases from MAC and AgentClinic-NEJM, our framework reduces the average number of activated experts from 17.0 to 3.0 whilst maintaining strong fact-level diagnostic quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-22T13:23:30Z)
• FRAC-MAS: A Safe and Explainable Multi-Agent System for Fracture Diagnosis [0.6351973754158782]
  FRAC-MAS is an agentic AI system for automated, explainable, and safe bone fracture detection.<n>A pipeline-depth ablation study confirms that our multi-agent critic triages 86.6% of cases into a high-confidence auto-confirmed cohort.<n>Patient preference studies against Llama, MedGemma, and Gemini demonstrate significantly more comprehensible clinical reports.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-22T10:56:00Z)
• Clinical Cognition Alignment for Gastrointestinal Diagnosis with Multimodal LLMs [63.535652574541764]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in medical image analysis.<n>Their application in gastrointestinal endoscopy is currently hindered by two critical limitations.<n>We propose a novel Clinical-Cognitive-Aligned (CogAlign) framework to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-21T07:47:37Z)
• MedCoRAG: Interpretable Hepatology Diagnosis via Hybrid Evidence Retrieval and Multispecialty Consensus [24.19892707167392]
  Existing AI approaches for clinical diagnosis often lack transparency, structured reasoning, and deployability.<n>We propose MedCoRAG, an end-to-end framework that generates diagnostic hypotheses from standardized abnormal findings.<n>It then constructs a patient-specific evidence package by jointly retrieving and pruning UMLS knowledge graph paths and clinical guidelines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T12:58:45Z)
• Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification [60.18369393468405]
  Existing verifiers usually underperform owing to a lack of domain knowledge and limited calibration.<n>GLEAN compiles expert-curated protocols into trajectory-informed, well-calibrated correctness signals.<n>We empirically validate GLEAN with agentic clinical diagnosis across three diseases from the MIMIC-IV dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T09:36:43Z)
• CURE: A Multimodal Benchmark for Clinical Understanding and Retrieval Evaluation [15.226811873305072]
  We introduce the Clinical Understanding and Retrieval Evaluation benchmark.<n>CURE evaluates reasoning and retrieval under controlled evidence settings.<n>We evaluate state-of-the-art MLLMs across distinct evidence-gathering paradigms in both closed-ended and open-ended diagnosis tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-28T02:56:18Z)
• A Multi-Agent Framework for Medical AI: Leveraging Fine-Tuned GPT, LLaMA, and DeepSeek R1 for Evidence-Based and Bias-Aware Clinical Query Processing [0.4349324020366305]
  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.<n>We propose a multi-agent medical QA framework that combines complementary LLMs with evidence retrieval, uncertainty estimation, and bias checks to improve answer reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T14:17:27Z)
• Do Mixed-Vendor Multi-Agent LLMs Improve Clinical Diagnosis? [6.913124180936944]
  Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems have emerged as a promising approach for clinical diagnosis.<n>We investigate the impact of vendor diversity by comparing Single-LLM, Single-Vendor, and Mixed-Vendor Multi-Agent Conversation (MAC) frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T18:42:58Z)
• RE-MCDF: Closed-Loop Multi-Expert LLM Reasoning for Knowledge-Grounded Clinical Diagnosis [11.973474883672282]
  We propose RE-MCDF, a relation-enhanced multi-expert clinical diagnosis framework.<n>We show that RE-MCDF consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in complex diagnostic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-01T15:53:27Z)
• AgentsEval: Clinically Faithful Evaluation of Medical Imaging Reports via Multi-Agent Reasoning [73.50200033931148]
  We introduce AgentsEval, a multi-agent stream reasoning framework that emulates the collaborative diagnostic workflow of radiologists.<n>By dividing the evaluation process into interpretable steps including criteria definition, evidence extraction, alignment, and consistency scoring, AgentsEval provides explicit reasoning traces and structured clinical feedback.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that AgentsEval delivers clinically aligned, semantically faithful, and interpretable evaluations that remain robust under paraphrastic, semantic, and stylistic perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:59:13Z)
• 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)
• Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.91760712805404]
  We introduce VivaBench, a benchmark for evaluating sequential clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our dataset consists of 1762 physician-curated clinical vignettes structured as interactive scenarios that simulate a (oral) examination in medical training.<n>Our analysis identified several failure modes that mirror common cognitive errors in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T16:24:35Z)
• Silence is Not Consensus: Disrupting Agreement Bias in Multi-Agent LLMs via Catfish Agent for Clinical Decision Making [80.94208848596215]
  We present a new concept called Catfish Agent, a role-specialized LLM designed to inject structured dissent and counter silent agreement.<n>Inspired by the catfish effect'' in organizational psychology, the Catfish Agent is designed to challenge emerging consensus to stimulate deeper reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T17:59:50Z)

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.