MAGIS: Evidence-Based Multi-Agent Reasoning for Interpretable Strabismus Clinical Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09249v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2026 09:21:53 GMT
• Title: MAGIS: Evidence-Based Multi-Agent Reasoning for Interpretable Strabismus Clinical Decision-Making
• Abstract summary: Strabismus is a common ocular disorder that requires fine-grained subtype diagnosis for individualized treatment planning.<n>We propose MAGIS, an evidence-based Multi-AGent reasoning for Interpretable Strabismus diagnosis framework.
• Score: 18.234379859242406
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Strabismus is a common ocular disorder that requires fine-grained subtype diagnosis for individualized treatment planning. However, existing deep learning methods mainly provide diagnostic predictions without transparent reasoning, while recent large vision-language models (LVLMs), although promising for joint image understanding and report generation, remain highly prone to hallucination in this evidence-sensitive and rule-driven medical task. To address these challenges, we propose MAGIS, an evidence-based Multi-AGent reasoning for Interpretable Strabismus diagnosis framework. MAGIS transforms black-box end-to-end generation into a structured diagnostic process consisting of candidate hypothesis generation, dual-evidence constrained context, evidence-based corrective verification, and report generation. Specifically, we introduce a Dual-Evidence Constrained Context (DECC) mechanism that jointly organizes visual evidence from the photograph of the nine cardinal positions of gaze and evidence-based clinical diagnostic rules into a constrained context for reliable diagnostic reasoning. We further develop an Evidence-Based Corrective Verification (EBCV) mechanism that verifies whether the current diagnostic hypothesis is supported by visual evidence, heatmap-based visual cues, and evidence-based clinical diagnostic rules. Hypothesis refinement is triggered when inconsistency is detected. Experiments on a fine-grained strabismus benchmark demonstrate that MAGIS not only significantly outperforms other state-of-the-art diagnostic systems, improving the weighted F1 score from 72.0% to 91.3%, but also substantially improves the clinical reliability (consistency, alignment, and completeness) of generated diagnostic reports. These results demonstrate that MAGIS provides an effective solution for building accurate, evidence-based, and clinically interpretable strabismus diagnosis systems.

Related papers

• Concept-Grounded Reasoning with Prompt-Driven Localization for Interpretable Structured Report Generation [66.62662330558906]
  CORAL is a multimodal framework that integrates spatial grounding and concept-level supervision into a unified reasoning process.<n>CORAL employs a prompt-driven medical segmentation model to localize lesions and predicts multi-class clinical attributes through a Concept Bottleneck module.<n>Experiments on BUS-CoT and IU X-ray datasets demonstrate consistent improvements in diagnostic accuracy, concept consistency, and report quality over strong general-purpose and medical MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-14T10:21:23Z)
• Evaluating Multi-Turn Multimodal Diagnostic Reasoning on Challenging Real-World Clinical Cases [59.5328455571863]
  ClinMM-Bench is the largest multi-turn multimodal clinical diagnostic evaluation benchmark to date.<n>It contains 1,089 challenging real-world clinical cases and 3,760 medical images across eight specialties.<n> proprietary models achieved the highest overall diagnostic accuracy, but the proportion of completely correct diagnoses remained limited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-28T16:19:03Z)
• Towards Clinically Interpretable Ophthalmic VQA via Spatially-Grounded Lesion Evidence [51.57735743553791]
  We introduce FundusGround, a new benchmark for clinically interpretable ophthalmic VQA with spatially-grounded lesion evidence.<n>Built upon this structured lesion evidence, 72,706 questions are then generated spanning four formats.<n>Experiments demonstrate that incorporating lesion-level visual evidence consistently improves model performance and transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T12:37:03Z)
• MultiDx: A Multi-Source Knowledge Integration Framework towards Diagnostic Reasoning [66.94527468532843]
  We propose MultiDx, a two-stage diagnostic reasoning framework.<n>It first generates suspected diagnoses and reasoning paths by leveraging knowledge from web search, SOAP-formatted case, and clinical case database.<n>Then it integrates multi-perspective evidence through matching, voting, and differential diagnosis to generate the final prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T08:46:29Z)
• Divide-then-Diagnose: Weaving Clinician-Inspired Contexts for Ultra-Long Capsule Endoscopy Videos [83.01543151239254]
  We define a new task, diagnosis-driven CE video summarization.<n>VideoCAP is the first CE dataset with diagnosis-driven annotations.<n>DiCE is a clinician-inspired framework that mirrors the standard CE reading workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T16:07:51Z)
• Dialectic-Med: Mitigating Diagnostic Hallucinations via Counterfactual Adversarial Multi-Agent Debate [2.645243404278707]
  We propose Dialectic-Med, a multi-agent framework that enforces diagnostic rigor through adversarial dialectics.<n>By explicitly modeling the cognitive process of falsification, our framework guarantees that diagnostic reasoning is tightly grounded in verified visual regions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T10:09:36Z)
• Improving Clinical Diagnosis with Counterfactual Multi-Agent Reasoning [16.709358805587506]
  Clinical diagnosis is a complex reasoning process in which clinicians gather evidence, form hypotheses, and test them against alternative explanations.<n>We propose a counterfactual multi-agent diagnostic framework inspired by clinician training that makes hypothesis testing explicit and evidence-grounded.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-29T19:14:26Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• MedEinst: Benchmarking the Einstellung Effect in Medical LLMs through Counterfactual Differential Diagnosis [13.241795322837861]
  We introduce MedEinst, a counterfactual benchmark with 5,383 paired clinical cases across 49 diseases.<n>We measure susceptibility via Bias Trap Rate--probability of misdiagnosing traps despite correctly diagnosing controls.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-10T17:39:25Z)
• Towards the Identifiability and Explainability for Personalized Learner Modeling: An Inductive Paradigm [36.60917255464867]
  We propose an identifiable cognitive diagnosis framework (ID-CDF) based on a novel response-proficiency-response paradigm inspired by encoder-decoder models. We show that ID-CDF can effectively address the problems without loss of diagnosis preciseness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-01T07:18:02Z)
• Interpretable Vertebral Fracture Diagnosis [69.68641439851777]
  Black-box neural network models learn clinically relevant features for fracture diagnosis. This work identifies the concepts networks use for vertebral fracture diagnosis in CT images.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-30T13:07:41Z)

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.