MedTRACE: Tool-Augmented Multimodal Clinical Reasoning Agents for Evidence-Grounded Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.14823v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 22:32:49 GMT
• Title: MedTRACE: Tool-Augmented Multimodal Clinical Reasoning Agents for Evidence-Grounded Decision-Making
• Abstract summary: This paper presents MedTRACE, a tool-augmented multimodal clinical reasoning agent for evidence-grounded decision-making.<n>It dynamically invokes visual grounding, evidence retrieval, and structured parsing tools to locate diagnosis-relevant regions.<n>It produces a diagnosis together with supporting evidence, an auditable reasoning trace, and calibrated confidence.
• Score: 13.499477476787602
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Multimodal clinical decision-making requires reliable reasoning over heterogeneous evidence from electronic health records, medical images, and physiological signals. Existing models typically map these inputs directly to diagnoses without explicitly assessing evidence sufficiency, tool-use requirements, or diagnostic uncertainty. This paper presents MedTRACE, a tool-augmented multimodal clinical reasoning agent for evidence-grounded decision-making. MedTRACE uses modality-specific encoders to construct a unified patient-state representation and performs an iterative loop of hypothesis formation, toolaware deliberation, and evidence verification. It dynamically invokes visual grounding, evidence retrieval, and structured parsing tools to locate diagnosis-relevant regions, retrieve clinical knowledge and similar cases, and extract structured findings. The acquired evidence enters an evidence memory, where a consistency verifier confirms or revises the current hypothesis. MedTRACE outputs a diagnosis together with supporting evidence, an auditable reasoning trace, and calibrated confidence. Experiments on multiple multimodal clinical diagnosis benchmarks show that MedTRACE improves diagnostic accuracy by 5.4% and AUROC by 4.7 percentage points over the strongest baseline. It also improves evidenceselection F1 by 8.2 percentage points and visual-grounding IoU by 6.5 percentage points, reduces expected calibration error by 31.6%, and decreases unsupported diagnostic errors by 27.8%. These results demonstrate that active evidence acquisition and verification improve the accuracy, interpretability, and reliability of multimodal clinical decisionmaking.

Related papers

• CDEG: Learning Decision-Critical Evidence for Long-Horizon Diagnostic Agents [21.40725112789917]
  We introduce CDEG, a graph-based framework that learns reusable decision-critical evidence from historical diagnostic trajectories.<n>We show that CDEG consistently improves diagnostic performance, achieving up to an 11.5% accuracy gain over vanilla agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-24T07:30:22Z)
• MedReaMM: Evaluating Large Multimodal Models on Expert-Level Clinical Diagnostic Synthesis [61.266743965495884]
  We introduce MedReaMM, a benchmark designed to evaluate models' ability to synthesize heterogeneous clinical evidence.<n>MedReaMM comprises 625 expert-validated cases with an average of 2.79 medical images per case and a total of 1,042 standardized diagnoses annotated with ICD-11 codes.<n>We evaluate 23 Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) and find that most achieve diagnostic accuracy scores below 50%, underscoring a substantial gap in multimodal diagnostic synthesis capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-23T09:37:53Z)
• 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)
• MAGIS: Evidence-Based Multi-Agent Reasoning for Interpretable Strabismus Clinical Decision-Making [18.234379859242406]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-08T09:21:53Z)
• Active Evidence-Seeking and Diagnostic Reasoning in Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Support [20.0177310948999]
  We introduce an OSCE-inspired standardized patient simulator and a controlled, reproducible benchmark for active diagnostic inquiry.<n>Across 468 cases and 15 models in our protocol, we observe that multi-turn evidence seeking reduces diagnostic accuracy by 12.75% and lowers supporting-evidence quality by 24.36%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-21T06:34:50Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Multi-turn Medical Diagnosis: Hold, Lure, and Self-Correction [72.89352076103889]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve high accuracy in medical diagnosis when all clinical information is provided in a single turn.<n>We introduce MINT, a high-fidelity, multi-turn medical diagnosis benchmark comprising 1,035 cases.<n>We uncover three persistent behavioral patterns that significantly impact diagnostic decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T00:23:10Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Evolving Diagnostic Agents in a Virtual Clinical Environment [75.59389103511559]
  We present a framework for training large language models (LLMs) as diagnostic agents with reinforcement learning.<n>Our method acquires diagnostic strategies through interactive exploration and outcome-based feedback.<n>DiagAgent significantly outperforms 10 state-of-the-art LLMs, including DeepSeek-v3 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-28T17:19:47Z)
• Enhancing Diagnostic Accuracy through Multi-Agent Conversations: Using Large Language Models to Mitigate Cognitive Bias [5.421033429862095]
  Cognitive biases in clinical decision-making significantly contribute to errors in diagnosis and suboptimal patient outcomes. This study explores the role of large language models in mitigating these biases through the utilization of a multi-agent framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T01:35:50Z)

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.