MedAgentBoard: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Collaboration with Conventional Methods for Diverse Medical TasksYinghao Zhu, Ziyi He, Haoran Hu et al.
The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has stimulated interest in multi-agent collaboration for addressing complex medical tasks. However, the practical advantages of multi-agent collaboration approaches remain insufficiently understood. Existing evaluations often lack generalizability, failing to cover diverse tasks reflective of real-world clinical practice, and frequently omit rigorous comparisons against both single-LLM-based and established conventional methods. To address this critical gap, we introduce MedAgentBoard, a comprehensive benchmark for the systematic evaluation of multi-agent collaboration, single-LLM, and conventional approaches. MedAgentBoard encompasses four diverse medical task categories: (1) medical (visual) question answering, (2) lay summary generation, (3) structured Electronic Health Record (EHR) predictive modeling, and (4) clinical workflow automation, across text, medical images, and structured EHR data. Our extensive experiments reveal a nuanced landscape: while multi-agent collaboration demonstrates benefits in specific scenarios, such as enhancing task completeness in clinical workflow automation, it does not consistently outperform advanced single LLMs (e.g., in textual medical QA) or, critically, specialized conventional methods that generally maintain better performance in tasks like medical VQA and EHR-based prediction. MedAgentBoard offers a vital resource and actionable insights, emphasizing the necessity of a task-specific, evidence-based approach to selecting and developing AI solutions in medicine. It underscores that the inherent complexity and overhead of multi-agent collaboration must be carefully weighed against tangible performance gains. All code, datasets, detailed prompts, and experimental results are open-sourced at https://medagentboard.netlify.app/.
15.6AIAug 4, 2025
HealthFlow: A Self-Evolving AI Agent with Meta Planning for Autonomous Healthcare ResearchYinghao Zhu, Yifan Qi, Zixiang Wang et al.
The rapid proliferation of scientific knowledge presents a grand challenge: transforming this vast repository of information into an active engine for discovery, especially in high-stakes domains like healthcare. Current AI agents, however, are constrained by static, predefined strategies, limiting their ability to navigate the complex, evolving ecosystem of scientific research. This paper introduces HealthFlow, a self-evolving AI agent that overcomes this limitation through a novel meta-level evolution mechanism. HealthFlow autonomously refines its high-level problem-solving policies by distilling procedural successes and failures into a durable, structured knowledge base, enabling it to learn not just how to use tools, but how to strategize. To anchor our research and provide a community resource, we introduce EHRFlowBench, a new benchmark featuring complex health data analysis tasks systematically derived from peer-reviewed scientific literature. Our experiments demonstrate that HealthFlow's self-evolving approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art agent frameworks. This work offers a new paradigm for intelligent systems that can learn to operationalize the procedural knowledge embedded in scientific content, marking a critical step toward more autonomous and effective AI for healthcare scientific discovery.
2.7CLNov 17, 2025
Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Identify Adherence to CONSORT Reporting Guidelines in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Methodological Evaluation StudyZhichao He, Mouxiao Bian, Jianhong Zhu et al.
The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement is the global benchmark for transparent and high-quality reporting of randomized controlled trials. Manual verification of CONSORT adherence is a laborious, time-intensive process that constitutes a significant bottleneck in peer review and evidence synthesis. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the accuracy and reliability of contemporary LLMs in identifying the adherence of published RCTs to the CONSORT 2010 statement under a zero-shot setting. We constructed a golden standard dataset of 150 published RCTs spanning diverse medical specialties. The primary outcome was the macro-averaged F1-score for the three-class classification task, supplemented by item-wise performance metrics and qualitative error analysis. Overall model performance was modest. The top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Flash and DeepSeek-R1, achieved nearly identical macro F1 scores of 0.634 and Cohen's Kappa coefficients of 0.280 and 0.282, respectively, indicating only fair agreement with expert consensus. A striking performance disparity was observed across classes: while most models could identify compliant items with high accuracy (F1 score > 0.850), they struggled profoundly with identifying non-compliant and not applicable items, where F1 scores rarely exceeded 0.400. Notably, some high-profile models like GPT-4o underperformed, achieving a macro F1-score of only 0.521. LLMs show potential as preliminary screening assistants for CONSORT checks, capably identifying well-reported items. However, their current inability to reliably detect reporting omissions or methodological flaws makes them unsuitable for replacing human expertise in the critical appraisal of trial quality.
2.7CLOct 22, 2025
SmartSwitch: Advancing LLM Reasoning by Overcoming Underthinking via Promoting Deeper Thought ExplorationXichen Zhang, Sitong Wu, Haoru Tan et al.
The long chain-of-thought (LongCoT) capability is central to the recent breakthroughs achieved by large language models in complex reasoning tasks. However, the accompanying issue of ''underthinking'', where models exhibit shallow reasoning by frequently switching thoughts without sufficient exploration, limits both performance and token efficiency. To address this problem, we propose a simple yet effective reasoning strategy: the SmartSwitch inference framework. This framework can be easily integrated into any large language model as a plug-and-play solution, continuously monitoring the model's reasoning process to detect underthinking and guide it toward deeper exploration of promising but overlooked thoughts. Specifically, the perception module identifies points where thoughts switch and evaluates the potential of the preceding thought using an off-the-shelf process reward model (PRM). If a high-potential thought is found to be prematurely abandoned, the intervention module interrupts the ongoing inference, backtracks to the point before the switch, and inserts a "deepening prompt" to encourage further exploration along that promising path. Extensive experiments on challenging mathematical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that our method significantly enhances the performance of various large language models of different sizes.