Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 68 references

Spatio-Temporal Attention Graph Neural Network: Explaining Causalities With Attention

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A diagnostic agent that learns from stepwise practice by storing inspectable experience—not by retraining—reaches clinician-level accuracy under realistic evidence constraints.

desk verdict Solid systems paper on interactive clinical agents with real multi-backbone and external gains; the self-evolution story is softer than the accuracy numbers because DCPs are built with ground truth and chart orders. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.10676 v2 pith:YKLGV6MF submitted 2026-03-11 cs.LG cs.CE

Kosti Koistinen , Kirsi Hellsten , Joni Herttuainen , Kimmo K. Kaski This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.CE
keywords clinicaldiagnosislargelanguagemodelsagenticworkflowself-evolutionexperienceretrievalexplainableAIinteractivedecision-makingelectronichealthrecords
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Most clinical AI systems treat diagnosis as a one-shot prediction from a complete record, which is not how clinicians work and leaves no auditable way for the system to improve from practice. This paper argues that diagnosis should be run as an interactive investigation: the agent starts with limited information, requests exams and tests, and may consult guidelines or literature, then after each case distills a reusable “diagnostic cognition primitive”—a portable pattern plus workup and decision guidance. Those primitives are retrieved later as conditional advice without changing the underlying model weights. On a stepwise abdominal-pain benchmark the approach lifts diverse base models by about eleven percentage points on average, reaches roughly ninety percent accuracy on a small clinician-anchored subset, and still helps on an independent external hospital cohort, including categories never used to build the experience store. The practical claim is that workflow-faithful investigation plus governable experience reuse can make clinical AI both more accurate and more inspectable as care standards and case mix drift.

What carries the argument

Diagnostic cognition primitives (DCPs): after each encounter the system consolidates a three-part, retrievable artifact—presentation pattern, test-ordering guidance, and diagnostic-decision rule—stored with provenance and reused as bounded conditional advice inside the same interactive deep clinical research loop.

What would settle it

Rebuild the experience store using only trajectories and outcomes available without ground-truth diagnosis labels or rule-based process feedback, then re-run the fixed held-out evaluation: if the accuracy gain over the no-retrieval ablation largely disappears, the self-evolution claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When diagnosis is executed as procedural evidence acquisition under a deep clinical research workflow, and completed trajectories are distilled into non-parametric diagnostic cognition primitives that can be retrieved and audited, off-the-shelf language models improve substantially over a stepwise baseline, match or exceed a published clinician reference under stricter information access, and transfer gains across institution, language, and unseen disease categories without weight updates.

Load-bearing premise

The lift depends on treating post-hoc primitives built with ground-truth labels, correctness flags, process feedback, and chart orders as genuine reusable clinical experience rather than templates that smuggle evaluation-relevant supervision into retrieval.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Clinical agents can improve with exposure by growing an inspectable experience library instead of opaque fine-tuning cycles.
  • Cross-site and cross-language portability can come from workflow-level heuristics, not only from re-training on local notes.
  • Failures are high-value training events: primitives from wrong source episodes are enriched when later errors are corrected.
  • Process metrics—workup consistency and guideline-aligned first imaging—become first-class evaluation targets alongside final diagnosis accuracy.
  • Governance becomes operational: individual experience artifacts can be reviewed, curated, or retracted as standards of care change.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If primitives must be built without label-informed feedback to stay honest as “practice,” prospective live-stream deployment may show smaller gains than the retrospective distillation protocol.
  • The same externalized-experience pattern could apply to other sequential clinical tasks—triage escalation, medication review, or imaging protocol choice—where auditability matters as much as accuracy.
  • Saturation of gains by backbone capacity suggests experience reuse multiplies reasoning skill rather than replacing it; weaker models may need better consolidation, not only more cases.
  • A natural next stress test is multi-specialty case mix where workup graphs diverge sharply, to see whether abdominal-domain primitives remain domain-agnostic or become specialty-bound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces DxEvolve, an LLM-based diagnostic agent that couples an interactive deep clinical research (DCR) workflow—stepwise requisition of physical exam, labs, imaging, and optional guideline/PubMed retrieval—with non-parametric diagnostic cognition primitives (DCPs) distilled from prior encounter trajectories and retrieved at decision time. On a held-out MIMIC-CDM cohort (n=400), DxEvolve reports an 11.2% mean accuracy gain over the CDM baseline across multiple open-weight backbones, with most of that gain retained in a DCP-free ablation (9.1%). On a reader-study subset (n=80) it reports 90.4% accuracy versus an 88.8% published clinician reference under full information. External validation at Chinese PLA General Hospital (N=293) shows ~10% gains on overlapping categories and ~17% on categories absent from DCP accrual, including under native Chinese records. Supporting analyses include exposure-indexed learning curves, enrichment of failure-sourced DCPs in improvement cases, blinded clinician ratings of early vs late DCPs, and process metrics for workup consistency and guideline-proxy adherence. Code and prompts are released.

Significance. If the interactive-diagnosis and portability results hold under clearer isolation of supervision channels, the work is a meaningful contribution to clinical AI: it reframes diagnosis as constrained evidence acquisition rather than single-pass full-record prediction, reports multi-backbone gains without fine-tuning, adds external and cross-lingual validation, and supplies process-level (not only endpoint) metrics plus open code. The DCP repository as an inspectable, curatable memory is a useful governance-oriented design relative to opaque parameter updates. These strengths are real even if the strongest “self-evolution from practice” framing needs tightening. The paper is therefore of interest to medical AI and clinical decision-support audiences, contingent on honest accounting of what is learned from labels versus from workflow scaffolding.

major comments (3)
  1. Methods §4.1 and Supplementary experience-construction prompt: each DCP is distilled using ground-truth diagnosis, a correctness flag, rule-based process feedback, and clinician chart orders. That is post-hoc, label- and outcome-supervised template construction, not unsupervised consolidation of practice trajectories. The abstract and Discussion frame DCPs as “experience from practice” and “self-evolution.” The ablations (DxEvolve w/o DCP vs full; ~9.1% vs ~11.2% over CDM) do not isolate this supervision channel. A load-bearing revision is required: either (i) an ablation that builds DCPs without ground truth / correctness / clinician orders (trajectory-only or self-predicted labels), or (ii) a substantial reframing that attributes gains primarily to DCR scaffolding and treats DCPs as supervised case-memory rather than pure experiential self-evolution.
  2. Results §2.2 / Fig. 2c: the claim of clinician-comparable or superior performance (90.4% vs 88.8%) compares DxEvolve under interactive evidence acquisition to a published clinician reference under full-information retrospective diagnosis. The text acknowledges the mismatch but still presents “surpassing the human expert” as a headline result. This is not a matched head-to-head. Either run a matched interactive or matched FI clinician comparison, or demote the claim to an unmatched anchor and remove superiority language from abstract and main results.
  3. Results §2.4–2.5 (exposure curves, error-driven dividend, late-DCP maturation): these analyses support the self-evolution narrative but inherit the same label-informed DCP construction. Enrichment of “incorrect-source” DCPs is expected if incorrect episodes are rewritten toward ground truth and rule-based feedback (Supp. error-correction rules). Without a control repository built without outcome labels, provenance and maturation results cannot cleanly support “error-driven learning from practice.” Add that control or qualify these subsections as analyses of supervised memory quality over exposure, not of unsupervised experiential maturation.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Held-out evaluation is clean, but DCPs are label- and chart-supervised templates (incl. diagnosis names in patterns), so ‘self-evolution from practice’ partly reduces to supervised retrieval rather than unsupervised experience.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Methods §4.1; Supp. Experience Construction Prompt (fields + error rules)]
    "After each completed diagnostic episode in the accumulation pool, DxEvolve performs a structured post-hoc consolidation step over the trajectory and distills a diagnostic cognition primitive (DCP)... The DCP must: - Be consistent with the ground truth diagnosis and the correctness flag. ... Clinician test orders (from the chart): tests ordered by the treating clinician... serving as a realistic reference for first line test selection and sequencing. ... If correctness is "Incorrect": ... Use the ground truth and the rule based feedback in ‘message’ as the primary reference. - Base the DCP on t"

    The paper presents DCPs as non-parametric ‘experience from practice’ enabling self-evolution without weight updates. Construction, however, injects evaluation-grade supervision (GT label, correctness, rule-based ideal process, clinician orders) into every stored primitive. Held-out accuracy gains attributed to ‘retrieved experience’ are therefore partly nearest-neighbor use of labeled ideal templates from the accrual pool—not a prediction forced for each case, but a fitted/supervised memory channel renamed as autonomous experiential learning.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Supp. Experience Construction Prompt — Experience Pattern field; Example DCP (Correct Case)]
    "Experience Pattern: - Case-style trigger pattern for retrieval, built from symptoms, basic context, and key objective findings. - You may append compact labels such as the final correct diagnosis and common misdiagnoses to improve retrieval. ... Experience Pattern: Post-cholecystectomy patient with acute RUQ/back pain, elevated liver enzymes and lipase. (Acute pancreatitis, DDx: Biliary pancreatitis vs. other etiologies)"

    When a similar evaluation case retrieves such a DCP, the agent’s context can contain the correct disease name as an explicit compact label. Diagnosis then partly reduces to reading a supervised exemplar matched by presentation pattern—closer to labeled retrieval than to discovering the diagnosis from unlabeled practice trajectories. This is the sharpest reduction of the ‘experience’ claim toward its labeled inputs.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [§2.4 Self-evolution… error-driven correction; Fig. 4b; Methods provenance definition]
    "In these cases, retrieved DCPs were significantly enriched with experiences distilled from prior diagnostic failures compared to the general retrieval distribution (Fig. 4b). This highlights an error-driven dividend, where heuristics rooted in past mistakes contribute more to subsequent performance gains. ... For provenance analyses, each retrieved DCP was labeled by the outcome of its source accrual episode... (correct versus incorrect primary diagnosis)."

    Provenance tags ‘incorrect’ only the source episode outcome. Content of those DCPs is still GT- and feedback-derived ideal guidance (see construction rules). Enrichment of incorrect-source DCPs among improvement cases therefore does not show learning from mistake content; it shows that corrective, label-informed templates written after failures are useful when retrieved. The causal story ‘failures yield corrective heuristics’ circularly attributes lift to error when the payload is supervised correction.

full rationale

This is an empirical agent paper, not a first-principles derivation, so classical self-definitional circularity is limited. Encounter-level non-overlap between DCP accrual and evaluation is stated clearly, and the DCR workflow alone (DxEvolve w/o DCP) already accounts for most of the reported lift (~9.1% of the ~11.2% mean gain). That independent content keeps the score moderate. The load-bearing soft spot is the experience channel: each DCP is post-hoc distilled with ground-truth diagnosis, correctness flag, rule-based process feedback, and clinician chart orders, and Experience Patterns may embed the correct diagnosis label. Retrieved ‘experience’ is therefore partly a compressed labeled ideal workup, not unsupervised consolidation of practice trajectories. The ‘error-driven dividend’ is similarly overstated: incorrect-source DCPs are still rewritten from ground truth and evaluator feedback, not from the failed reasoning. Gains on held-out cases are not forced by construction (wrong retrieval can hurt), so this is partial circularity of mechanism/framing rather than pure train/test leakage or a tautological equation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central performance claims rest on standard LLM agent assumptions plus paper-specific constructs (DCR loop, DCP schema) and several operational choices (decoding, step cap, retrieval stack, guideline set). Experience consolidation explicitly consumes ground truth and chart orders, which is a domain modeling choice that underwrites the self-evolution narrative.

free parameters (5)
  • LLM decoding (temperature, top-p, top-k)
    Fixed at 0.1 / 0.7 / 50 for all compared methods; affects action compliance and diagnosis variance though held constant across ablations.
  • Max interaction steps
    Episodes capped at 20 steps; termination rule affects incomplete-episode scoring as incorrect.
  • DCP retrieval embedding and top-k set size
    Dense retrieval with BGE-style encoder and FAISS cosine search; small retrieved set injected as bounded context—implementation detail that can change reuse behavior.
  • Guideline corpus size/selection (35 documents)
    Manually curated abdominal guidelines; content selection is a free design choice influencing Guideline Search utility.
  • Clinician DCP rating sample (20 early + 20 late)
    Maturation claims partly rest on this small blinded sample and two raters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Workflow-aligned diagnosis with gated evidence is the right evaluation substrate for clinical competence claims.
    Introduced in Introduction/Results as correcting the process gap versus full-information prediction; underpins all interactive metrics.
  • ad hoc to paper Encounter trajectories can be distilled into portable three-part DCPs that improve future decisions without parameter updates.
    Core mechanism in §4.1; not a standard theorem, a design hypothesis tested empirically.
  • domain assumption MIMIC-CDM acute abdominal categories and action-revealed evidence faithfully support claims about real diagnostic workups.
    Benchmark choice from Hager et al.; limitations of EHR-derived interactive proxies acknowledged in Discussion.
  • domain assumption Primary diagnosis string match is a sufficient endpoint for “clinician-level” diagnostic proficiency in this setting.
    Methods evaluation protocol; process metrics are secondary.
  • domain assumption Off-the-shelf LLMs plus shared prompt contracts isolate architectural gains from fine-tuning confounds.
    Stated in Results/Methods; assumes prompt compliance is adequate for fair backbone comparison.
invented entities (2)
  • Deep Clinical Research (DCR) workflow
    purpose: Cast diagnosis as iterative evidence-seeking with tool actions and state updates under workflow constraints.
    Paper-defined agent protocol; independent evidence is empirical performance, not external formal definition.
  • Diagnostic Cognition Primitive (DCP)
    purpose: Explicit, retrievable experience artifact (pattern, test-ordering, decision) for non-parametric self-evolution and audit.
    Central invented carrier of “clinical experience”; falsifiable only via transfer experiments in this and future studies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatio-Temporal Attention Graph Neural Network: Explaining Causalities With Attention." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKLGV6MF

@misc{pith2026260310676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatio-Temporal Attention Graph Neural Network: Explaining Causalities With Attention},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKLGV6MF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.10676}
}
read the original abstract

Industrial Control Systems (ICS) underpin critical infrastructure and face growing cyber-physical threats due to the convergence of operational technology and networked environments. While machine learning-based anomaly detection approaches in ICS shows strong theoretical performance, deployment is often limited by poor explainability, high false-positive rates, and sensitivity to evolving system behavior, i.e., baseline drifting. We propose a Spatio-Temporal Attention Graph Neural Network (STA-GNN) for unsupervised and explainable anomaly detection in ICS that models both temporal dynamics and relational structure of the system. Sensors, controllers, and network entities are represented as nodes in a dynamically learned graph, enabling the model to capture inter-dependencies across physical processes and communication patterns. Attention mechanisms provide influential relationships, supporting inspection of correlations and potential causal pathways behind detected events. The approach supports multiple data modalities, including SCADA point measurements, network flow features, and payload features, and thus enables unified cyber-physical analysis. To address operational requirements, we incorporate a conformal prediction strategy to control false alarm rates and monitor performance degradation under drifting of the environment. Our findings highlight the possibilities and limitations of model evaluation and common pitfalls in anomaly detection in ICS. Our findings emphasise the importance of explainable, drift-aware evaluation for reliable deployment of learning-based security monitoring systems.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L., Franklin, N

    Graber, M. L., Franklin, N. & Gordon, R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. �������� �� �������� �����������, 1493–1499 (2005)

    2005

  2. [2]

    & Sittig, D

    Singh, H. & Sittig, D. F. Advancing the science of measurement of diagnostic errors in healthcare: the safer dx framework.��� ������� � ��������, 103–110 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    Singh, H., Meyer, A. N. & Thomas, E. J. The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving us adult populations.��� ������� � ��������, 727–731 (2014)

    2014

  4. [4]

    R.�� ���The causes of errors in clinical reasoning: cognitive biases, knowledge deficits, and dual process thinking.�������� ����������, 23–30 (2017)

    Norman, G. R.�� ���The causes of errors in clinical reasoning: cognitive biases, knowledge deficits, and dual process thinking.�������� ����������, 23–30 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    K.�� ���Adverse diagnostic events in hospitalised patients: a single- centre, retrospective cohort study.��� ������� � ��������, 377–388 (2025)

    Dalal, A. K.�� ���Adverse diagnostic events in hospitalised patients: a single- centre, retrospective cohort study.��� ������� � ��������, 377–388 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    R., Miller, B

    Ball, J. R., Miller, B. T. & Balogh, E. P.��������� ��������� �� ������ ���� (National Academies Press, 2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Schwartzstein, R. M. & Iyer, A. A. Critical thinking for 21st-century medicine—moving beyond illness scripts.�������, 1509–1510 (2025). 24

    2025

  8. [8]

    & Powell, D

    Mahajan, A., Obermeyer, Z., Daneshjou, R., Lester, J. & Powell, D. Cognitive bias in clinical large language models.��� ������� ���������, 428 (2025)

    2025

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Ferber, D.�� ���Development and validation of an autonomous artificial intel- ligence agent for clinical decision-making in oncology.������ ������1–13 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    ������ ��������(2026)

    Nenadic, I.�� ���Physicians as context engineers in the era of generative AI. ������ ��������(2026). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-026-04215-x

    2026 doi

  3. [11]

    Singhal, K.�� ���Large language models encode clinical knowledge.���������, 172–180 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Achiam, J.�� ���Gpt-4 technical report.����� �������� ����������������(2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    V., M¨ oller, S

    Eriksen, A. V., M¨ oller, S. & Ryg, J. Use of gpt-4 to diagnose complex clinical cases (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    & Chen, J

    Savage, T., Nayak, A., Gallo, R., Rangan, E. & Chen, J. H. Diagnostic reasoning prompts reveal the potential for large language model interpretability in medicine. ��� ������� ���������, 20 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Qiu, P.�� ���Quantifying the reasoning abilities of llms on clinical cases.������ ����������������, 9799 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    J., Bang, C

    Gong, E. J., Bang, C. S., Lee, J. J. & Baik, G. H. Knowledge-practice perfor- mance gap in clinical large language models: Systematic review of 39 benchmarks. ������� �� ������� �������� ����������, e84120 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    G.�� ���Assessment of large language models in clinical reasoning: a novel benchmarking study.���� ���, AIdbp2500120 (2025)

    McCoy, L. G.�� ���Assessment of large language models in clinical reasoning: a novel benchmarking study.���� ���, AIdbp2500120 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    M.�� ���Reliability of LLMs as medical assistants for the general public: a randomized preregistered study.������ ��������(2026)

    Bean, A. M.�� ���Reliability of LLMs as medical assistants for the general public: a randomized preregistered study.������ ��������(2026). URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-04074-y

    2026 doi

  11. [19]

    Han, T.�� ���Comparative analysis of multimodal large language model performance on clinical vignette questions.�������, 1320–1321 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    I., Martin, R

    Kaczmarczyk, R., Wilhelm, T. I., Martin, R. & Roos, J. Evaluating multimodal ai in medical diagnostics.��� ������� ���������, 205 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    McDuff, D.�� ���Towards accurate differential diagnosis with large language models.������1–7 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    ����������� �� ��� �������� ������� �� �����������, e2426153122 (2025)

    Z¨ oller, N.�� ���Human–ai collectives most accurately diagnose clinical vignettes. ����������� �� ��� �������� ������� �� �����������, e2426153122 (2025). 25

    2025

  15. [23]

    Bhasuran, B.�� ���Preliminary analysis of the impact of lab results on large language model generated differential diagnoses.��� ������� ���������, 166 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Li, W.�� ���Macd: Multi-agent clinical diagnosis with self-learned knowledge for llm.����� �������� ����������������(2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Chen, X.�� ���Enhancing diagnostic capability with multi-agents conversational large language models.��� ������� ���������, 159 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Zhao, W.�� ���An agentic system for rare disease diagnosis with traceable reasoning.������1–10 (2026)

    2026

  19. [27]

    P., Custers, E

    Charlin, B., Boshuizen, H. P., Custers, E. J. & Feltovich, P. J. Scripts and clinical reasoning.������� �����������, 1178–1184 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    (ed.)������ ������� ������ ��� ��� ������

    Xu, W.�� ���Zaimis, E. (ed.)������ ������� ������ ��� ��� ������. (ed.Zaimis, E.)�������� �� ������ ����������� ���������� �������(2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Li, J.�� ���Agent hospital: A simulacrum of hospital with evolvable medical agents.����� �������� ����������������(2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Food, U., Administration, D.�� ���Transparency for machine learning-enabled medical devices: Guiding principles.�� ���� ��� ���� ��������������� ��������� ������, 2024 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    D., Li, Y

    Babic, B., Glenn Cohen, I., Stern, A. D., Li, Y. & Ouellet, M. A general framework for governing marketed ai/ml medical devices.��� ������� ���������, 328 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    ������ ����������, 932–942 (2025)

    Liu, X.�� ���A generalist medical language model for disease diagnosis assistance. ������ ����������, 932–942 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Kore, A.�� ���Empirical data drift detection experiments on real-world medical imaging data.������ ����������������, 1887 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Subasri, V.�� ���Detecting and remediating harmful data shifts for the responsi- ble deployment of clinical ai models.���� ������� �����, e2513685–e2513685 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    (ed.)������ ��������� ������� �� ��� ������ ��� ������ ���� �����������

    Dong, S.�� ���Zaimis, E. (ed.)������ ��������� ������� �� ��� ������ ��� ������ ���� �����������. (ed.Zaimis, E.)�������� �� ������ ����������� ���������� �������(2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    ���������, 259–265 (2023)

    Moor, M.�� ���Foundation models for generalist medical artificial intelligence. ���������, 259–265 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Tu, T.�� ���Towards conversational diagnostic artificial intelligence.���������, 442–450 (2025). 26

    2025

  30. [38]

    Nori, H.�� ���Sequential diagnosis with language models.����� �������� ����������������(2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    & Topol, E

    Rajpurkar, P., Chen, E., Banerjee, O. & Topol, E. J. Ai in health and medicine. ������ ����������, 31–38 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    URL https://doi

    Hager, P.�� ���Evaluation and mitigation of the limitations of large language models in clinical decision-making.������ ��������(2023). URL https://doi. org/10.1038/s41591-024-03097-1

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    E.�� ���Mimic-iv, a freely accessible electronic health record dataset

    Johnson, A. E.�� ���Mimic-iv, a freely accessible electronic health record dataset. ��������� ������, 1 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Yang, A.�� ���Qwen3 technical report.����� �������� ����������������(2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models

    Liu, A.�� ���Deepseek-v3. 2: Pushing the frontier of open large language models. ����� �������� ����������������(2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06471

    Team, G.�� ���Glm-4.5: Agentic, reasoning, and coding (arc) foundation models (2025). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06471. arXiv:2508.06471

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Sellergren, A.�� ���Medgemma technical report.����� �������� ���������������� (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Toma, A.�� ���Clinical camel: An open expert-level medical language model with dialogue-based knowledge encoding.����� �������� ����������������(2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    & Muennighoff, N

    Xiao, S., Liu, Z., Zhang, P. & Muennighoff, N. C-pack: Packaged resources to advance general chinese embedding (2023). arXiv:2309.07597

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    & J´ egou, H

    Johnson, J., Douze, M. & J´ egou, H. Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs. ���� ������������ �� ��� �����, 535–547 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Di Saverio, S.�� ���Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the wses jerusalem guidelines.����� ������� �� ��������� ���������, 27 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Sartelli, M.�� ���2020 update of the wses guidelines for the management of acute colonic diverticulitis in the emergency setting.����� ������� �� ��������� ���������, 32 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Lepp¨ aniemi, A.�� ���2019 wses guidelines for the management of severe acute pancreatitis.����� ������� �� ��������� ���������, 27 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Yokoe, M.�� ���Tokyo guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis (with videos).������� �� ������������������������� �������� ��, 41–54 (2018). 27 Supplementary Information A Diagnostic Prompt Template The following is the main diagnostic pr...

    2018

  45. [53]

    No deviations

    You MUST always follow the exact format (A or B). No deviations

  46. [54]

    - Laboratory Tests: only valid lab names

    For any test, ONLY request those allowed by the corresponding tool. - Laboratory Tests: only valid lab names. - Imaging: must specify ‘<REGION> <MODALITY>’ format (e.g., ‘Abdomen Ultrasound’, ‘Abdomen CT’). - No invented tests, no unsupported modalities

  47. [55]

    - Consider all clinically relevant imaging modalities for the suspected condition

    Before giving the final diagnosis, you MUST explicitly perform all three core types of medical evaluation as actions – at least one Physical Examination, one Laboratory Test, and one Imaging. - Consider all clinically relevant imaging modalities for the suspected condition. ��...

  48. [56]

    You MUST use Experience Search at least once before giving the final diagnosis. - In Action Input you SHOULD provide a short case style description of this patient (age, sex, chief complaint, symptom pattern, duration, key exam or lab or imaging findings), not just a single di...

  49. [57]

    You MUST use Guideline Search at least once before giving the final diagnosis

  50. [58]

    Stop when a confident diagnosis is possible based on available information

  51. [59]

    When using Experience Search, Guideline Search, or PubMed Search, integrate only relevant insights into your Thought and proceed; do not rely on them if they conflict with patient-specific objective data

  52. [60]

    CRITICAL FORMAT RULES:

    If uncertainty remains but no high-yield action exists, you MUST provide the best-supported diagnosis (Format B) based on currently available data, without loop actions indefinitely. CRITICAL FORMAT RULES:

  53. [61]

    MUST output the ”Observation:” label immediately after Action Input as a signal to pause for respond

  54. [62]

    AVAILABLE TOOLS: - Physical Examination: Request physical examination of patient and receive the observations

    Keep ”Action”, ”Action Input” and ”Final Diagnosis” fields concise and to the point. AVAILABLE TOOLS: - Physical Examination: Request physical examination of patient and receive the observations. This is a strongly recommended Examination in the clinical diagnostic process and...

  55. [63]

    Use this as a high quality reference for realistic first line test selection and sequencing

    Clinician test orders (from the chart). Use this as a high quality reference for realistic first line test selection and sequencing

  56. [64]

    Diagnostic steps where the tool call succeeded (has a non-error observation)

  57. [65]

    adhe- sive small bowel obstruction

    Rule based feedback ‘message’ or retrieved guidance that explicitly recom- mends a specific test or imaging setting - Prefer to fully cover the explicitly provided clinician orders and successful tool calls before adding anything else. - Do not invent new tests, imaging modali...

  58. [66]

    Physical Examination

  59. [67]

    Laboratory Tests: CBC differential, CMP, (Blood) Lactate, (Urine) HCG

  60. [68]

    Escalate to further imaging (e.g., CT) only if ultrasound is non-diagnostic and clinical suspicion for obstruction or other complication remains high

    Imaging: modality=Ultrasound, region=Abdomen. Escalate to further imaging (e.g., CT) only if ultrasound is non-diagnostic and clinical suspicion for obstruction or other complication remains high. Diagnostic Decision Experience: In a patient with right upper quadrant or right-...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.