AT-CXR: Uncertainty-Aware Agentic Triage for Chest X-rays

Danny Chen; Gelei Xu; Jun Xia; Mengzhao Jia; Mingze Jiang; Xueyang Li; Yiyu Shi

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

AT-CXR: Uncertainty-Aware Agentic Triage for Chest X-rays

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An uncertainty guardrail that gates a chest X-ray classifier's actions lifts pulmonary-edema triage to 95.3% full-coverage accuracy and ~99% auto-resolution within a 5% error budget.

desk verdict Solid engineering application paper whose selective-prediction claims are not supportable as written; needs a defined ranking procedure or a trimmed evaluation. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19322 v1 pith:IJ6WHLI7 submitted 2025-08-26 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Xueyang Li , Mingze Jiang , Gelei Xu , Jun Xia , Mengzhao Jia , Danny Chen , Yiyu Shi This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV

keywords agenticAIchestX-raytriageselectivepredictionuncertainty-awareroutingout-of-distributiondetectionMahalanobisdistancepulmonaryedemavision-languagemodels

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

This paper claims that chest X-ray triage should be treated as a sequential decision problem under uncertainty rather than a single-pass classification task, and that an agentic policy built on uncertainty signals pays off in measured accuracy and safety. AT-CXR pairs a lightweight classifier's confidence with a Mahalanobis out-of-distribution score computed on radiomics features, then feeds both to a deterministic guardrail: if a case is low-confidence or out-of-distribution, the router may not accept it directly and must verify via test-time augmentation, a four-model committee vote, or escalation to a vision-language model that ends in abstain-with-suggestion. On a balanced 1,000-image pulmonary-edema subset of NIH ChestX-ray14, the LLM-decided and rule-based routers reach 95.3% and 93.8% full-coverage accuracy, beating every zero-shot VLM (best: 81.2%) and supervised classifier (best: 87.8%) evaluated; selective-prediction metrics improve more dramatically — a 5% error budget still allows auto-resolving roughly 99% of cases, versus 59–69% for supervised baselines. The practical stake, if the claims hold, is that a modest classifier wrapped in an uncertainty guardrail can deliver high-coverage selective automation on ordinary clinical hardware, with per-case latency of 1.5–3.3 seconds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the uncertainty guardrail: a deterministic, model-agnostic gate that combines y_confidence (the two-logit softmax posterior of the RexNet-150 base classifier) with y_Mahalanobis, the Mahalanobis distance of the image's PyRadiomics features to the reference-set distribution, flagged OOD at the 95th percentile. Cases that are out-of-distribution or below the confidence threshold cannot be accepted directly; the router must invoke verification tools in cost order: test-time augmentation (accept if the posterior standard deviation σ_TTA ≤ 0.05), a four-model mixture-of-experts committee (accept if agreement ≥ 0.75), and finally a vision-language model that is termin

What would settle it

Rebuild AT-CXR's risk–coverage curve two ways — ranking every case by the base classifier's confidence y_confidence, and sweeping the guardrail's own accept/abstain decisions — and check whether AURC stays near 1% and coverage@5% risk near 99%. If those numbers depend on a ranking that is the same signal driving the guardrail, the selective-prediction advantage over supervised baselines is an artifact of the unspecified curve construction. A distributional check: run the untouched system on an external dataset such as CheXpert; if the guardrail works, abstention should rise and accepted-case e

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that uncertainty-aware, agentic decision-making — not a better network — is what lifts triage performance. The system computes two per-case signals, y_confidence from a RexNet-150 classifier and a Mahalanobis distance y_Mahalanobis measuring how far the image's radiomics features sit from the reference distribution, and a guardrail forbids direct acceptance whenever the case is out-of-distribution or low-confidence. A router then iterates over verification tools in cost order — test-time augmentation, a four-model committee, and finally a VLM that ends in abstain-with-suggestion. Across five folds on a balanced pulmonary-edema subset, both router variants beat every base

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the risk–coverage comparison is fair: AT-CXR's curve is built by ranking cases on an honest confidence score, yet the paper never explains how a system issuing discrete accept/abstain decisions is ranked — if that ranking is the same classifier confidence that triggers the guardrail, the comparison against supervised baselines is circular.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At a 5% error budget on auto-resolved cases, AT-CXR auto-resolves roughly 99% of pulmonary-edema cases (coverage@5% risk = 98.9%); abstained cases land in a human-intervention queue with a suggested label, so the failure mode is deferral, not a forced wrong label.
The full pipeline runs on a single GPU workstation at 1.5–3.3 s per case — below every evaluated VLM — because tool escalation fires only when earlier checks fail.
The two routers give deployments a choice of operating point: rule-based for maximal throughput (93.8% accuracy at 1.5 s), LLM-decided for maximal accuracy (95.3% at 3.3 s).
Every case produces a machine-readable audit trace (uncertainty signals, tool sequence, thresholds, final decision), and accepted positives additionally get a class activation map and a lung-whiteness index — artifacts that support human review and audit.

Reading between the lines

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

The accuracy gap between the lone base classifier (RexNet-150, 86.2%) and the agent (95.3%) dwarfs any model-swap gain in the paper, which suggests the policy — selective escalation and deferral — is doing the work, not the backbone network. A testable extension: swap the base classifier for another single-pass model and check whether coverage@5% risk stays near 99%.
Because the OOD threshold is the 95th percentile of the reference set itself, roughly 5% of in-distribution cases are always flagged for verification; the system deliberately over-escalates. This conservative bias is the likely source of the low error rate, and it makes the percentile a tuning knob that trades human workload against error.
The reported full-coverage accuracy counts the suggested labels of abstained cases as final outputs even though those cases are routed to humans. The clinically meaningful number is accuracy on the auto-accepted subset, which the paper reports only indirectly through the risk-coverage quantities.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick read: the system itself is a solid engineering package — a staged uncertainty checkpoint (Mahalanobis + softmax confidence), TTA and MoE verification tools, VLM escalation with a guardrail, two router designs, and an end-to-end pipeline with latency measured on a clinical-grade GPU. The writing is clear, and code and processed data are linked. The novelty is the application to CXR triage, not the components, and the paper says so honestly.

What works: the rule-based and LLM routers are cleanly contrasted, the latency story is useful, and the positive/abstain decision trace is a sensible audit artifact. Full-coverage accuracy of ~94–95% on a balanced 1,000-image subset is a plausible result, but the comparison inflates it: abstain-with-suggestion is counted as a final label, so AT-CXR gets credit for cases that actually go to a human. The paper is transparent about this, but it makes the direct comparison to single-pass classifiers misleading.

The real soft spot is Table 3. The selective-prediction metrics—AURC, risk@80%, coverage@5%—need a per-case confidence ordering for AT-CXR, and the paper never defines one. The router makes discrete accept/abstain decisions. If the ordering is the base classifier's softmax, the curve is just the Stage II model, not the agentic policy. If it is the router's binary output, there is no threshold sweep and the AURC is degenerate. The stress-test note is correct on both counts, and the ~99% coverage@5% risk is largely forced by the 4.7% overall error. As reported, the selective-prediction claim does not hold. The fix is straightforward: define a scalar confidence for the full agent (e.g., a function of the guardrail signals and tool outputs) and show the curve, or drop those claims.

Minor issues: the supervised baselines are trained from scratch on 800 images per fold, so 'state-of-the-art' is an overstatement; thresholds are tuned without a disclosed procedure or sensitivity analysis; and the NIH subset is small and single-label. None of these are fatal.

Bottom line: worth a referee's time because the engineering contribution is real and the pipeline is a useful template, but the revision should address the selective-prediction methodology directly. If that cannot be fixed, the paper should be re-scoped to the full-coverage and latency results.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces AT-CXR, an uncertainty-aware agentic framework for chest X-ray triage. The system computes a baseline classifier confidence (from RexNet-150) and a Mahalanobis OOD score, then applies a guardrailed policy (either a deterministic rule-based router or an LLM-decided router) that can accept, invoke test-time augmentation (TTA), consult a mixture of experts (MoE), or escalate to a VLM, with a final option to abstain with a suggested label. The experiments use a balanced 1,000-image subset of NIH ChestX-ray14 for pulmonary-edema triage. The paper reports that both AT-CXR variants achieve higher full-coverage accuracy than zero-shot VLMs and supervised classifiers, and reports selective-prediction metrics (AURC, risk@80% coverage, coverage@5% risk) indicating substantially better risk-coverage trade-offs, along with lower latency. The code is made publicly available.

Significance. If the empirical claims are valid, AT-CXR addresses an important and under-explored operational problem: safe, selective automation in medical imaging triage, where a system decides when to accept, escalate, or defer. The two-router design, the explicit uncertainty guardrail, and the auditable artifact bundle are valuable contributions. However, the evaluation has a load-bearing gap: the selective-prediction metrics are computed without a defined confidence ranking for the discrete accept/abstain policy, so the headline improvement in AURC and risk-coverage is not verifiable. The full-coverage comparison also conflates automated decisions with human-reviewed abstentions. These issues affect the central claims and require major revisions.

major comments (3)

[Section 4, Table 3] The AURC, risk@80%, and coverage@5% metrics for AT-CXR are not well-defined. Section 4 states that AURC is computed for methods that 'expose a confidence score (AT-CXR and supervised baselines)', but AT-CXR is a discrete state machine (Algorithm 1, §3.3) that emits accept/abstain decisions. No scalar confidence ranking for AT-CXR cases is specified. If the ranking is the base classifier confidence yconfidence, then AT-CXR's AURC should be close to RexNet-150's 4.7%, not 0.9%; if it is derived from the router's binary decisions, the curve is degenerate. Without the ranking procedure, Table 3 is not reproducible and the selective-prediction advantage is unsupported.
[Table 2 (full-coverage results)] Counting abstain-with-suggested-label as the system's final output for 100% coverage is misleading. The suggested label is intended for human review, not autonomous action; including it in accuracy makes the comparison to supervised classifiers, which label all cases autonomously, apples-to-oranges. The paper should report the automated acceptance rate (coverage at the operating point) and the accuracy on accepted cases separately, and provide a human-review cost analysis. Without this, the claim of 'higher full-coverage accuracy' conflates automation with deferral.
[Table 3, coverage@5% risk] The reported coverage@5% risk for AT-CXR (98.5–98.9%) is nearly forced by the full-coverage error of 4.7%: if full-coverage risk is below the 5% budget, one can trivially accept all cases. This metric therefore does not independently demonstrate superior selective prediction; it only reflects the full-coverage accuracy. The comparison to supervised baselines (59–69%) is confounded by the baselines' higher full-coverage error (12–14%). A meaningful comparison requires risk-coverage curves evaluated on a common ranking basis, not a single operating point.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.2.1] The Mahalanobis reference distribution is fitted on 'a fixed reference dataset (e.g., the training split)', but the paper does not explain how this relates to the five cross-validation folds. Is the reference set the training fold, or a separate held-out set? Please clarify to ensure no information leakage.
[Section 4] The operating thresholds (τconf=0.60, τTTA=0.05, τMoE=0.75) are said to be selected on a held-out set, but the selection procedure and the characteristics of that set are not described. Since several major claims depend on these thresholds, provide a sensitivity analysis or at least state the selection criterion.
[Table 2] The paper excludes LLaVA-Med and MedRAX because of degenerate outputs. This is reasonable, but it should be stated in the main text (it appears in Results) and the implications for the VLM comparison should be acknowledged, since the excluded models would have been among the medical-specialized baselines.
[Table 4] Latency is compared only against VLMs. The supervised classifiers (e.g., RexNet-150) likely have much lower latency than 1.5 s; reporting the latency of these baselines would put the claimed 'low latency' advantage in context.
[Abstract] The word 'truly autonomous' is strong given the abstain-with-suggested-label mechanism that defers to human review. Consider rephrasing to 'selective autonomous triage' to avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; Table 3's unspecified AURC ranking is a reproducibility gap, not a demonstrated circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. Stage II produces yconfidence from a trained RexNet-150 classifier and a Mahalanobis OOD score from reference-set statistics; Stage III consumes these as explicit inputs under thresholds (τConfidence, τOOD, τTTA, τMoE) selected on a held-out set. Full-coverage accuracy (Table 2) is evaluated on fixed five-fold splits against external supervised and VLM baselines, and the agent's accuracy gain is an empirical ensemble/policy result rather than a restatement of any input. The Mahalanobis OOD threshold is a standard percentile calibration, not a self-defined endpoint. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears; the cited prior work on agentic AI is contextual, not used to force the paper's conclusions. The only notable weakness is that Section 4 states 'For methods that expose a confidence score (AT-CXR and supervised baselines), we quantify selective automation with the Area Under the Risk–Coverage curve (AURC)...' but never specifies the scalar used to rank AT-CXR cases for the risk–coverage curve. This makes Table 3's AURC/risk@coverage values hard to audit and potentially dependent on the base classifier's confidence, but the paper does not exhibit an equation or construction showing that the claimed selective-prediction result is identical to its own input. An underspecified metric is a reproducibility concern, not a demonstrated circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is established under the strict evidence standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The system's gains depend on four tuned thresholds and a Gaussian assumption for OOD scoring. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the 'lung whiteness index' is a computed summary, not an entity.

free parameters (5)

tau_conf (high-confidence threshold) = 0.60
Selected on a held-out set to meet a desired operating point; the selection procedure is not described. It gates direct accepts.
tau_TTA (TTA stability threshold) = 0.05
Selected on held-out set; if TTA posterior std <= 0.05, accept is allowed.
tau_MoE (MoE agreement threshold) = 0.75
Selected on held-out set; if MoE agreement rate >= 0.75, accept is allowed.
tau_OOD (Mahalanobis OOD threshold) = 95th percentile of reference set
Fixed as the 95th percentile of Mahalanobis scores on the training split; data-derived.
K (number of TTA augmentations)
The paper refers to 'K benign augmentations' but never reports K, which affects the TTA stability estimate.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Radiomics features are approximately Gaussian, so Mahalanobis distance is a valid OOD score.
Section 3.2.1 states 'The method is principled under a Gaussian reference model'; no normality test is provided.
domain assumption The balanced 1000-image subset is representative of pulmonary edema triage.
Section 4 uses this subset as the only evaluation set; clinical prevalence of edema is much lower than 50%.
domain assumption Abstain-with-suggested-label can be counted as a final label for accuracy at 100% coverage.
Section 4 defines 100% coverage this way, so abstentions contribute a label just like direct predictions, but real abstention incurs human review cost.
domain assumption GPT-4.1-mini as LLM router follows the prompt rubric and yields parseable JSON.
Appendix A gives a structured prompt; no failure rate or parsing errors are reported for the router.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AT-CXR: Uncertainty-Aware Agentic Triage for Chest X-rays." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJ6WHLI7

@misc{pith2026250819322,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AT-CXR: Uncertainty-Aware Agentic Triage for Chest X-rays},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJ6WHLI7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19322}
}

read the original abstract

Agentic AI is advancing rapidly, yet truly autonomous medical-imaging triage, where a system decides when to stop, escalate, or defer under real constraints, remains relatively underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce AT-CXR, an uncertainty-aware agent for chest X-rays. The system estimates per-case confidence and distributional fit, then follows a stepwise policy to issue an automated decision or abstain with a suggested label for human intervention. We evaluate two router designs that share the same inputs and actions: a deterministic rule-based router and an LLM-decided router. Across five-fold evaluation on a balanced subset of NIH ChestX-ray14 dataset, both variants outperform strong zero-shot vision-language models and state-of-the-art supervised classifiers, achieving higher full-coverage accuracy and superior selective-prediction performance, evidenced by a lower area under the risk-coverage curve (AURC) and a lower error rate at high coverage, while operating with lower latency that meets practical clinical constraints. The two routers provide complementary operating points, enabling deployments to prioritize maximal throughput or maximal accuracy. Our code is available at https://github.com/XLIAaron/uncertainty-aware-cxr-agent.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

IEEe Access (2025)

Acharya, D.B., Kuppan, K., Divya, B.: Agentic ai: Autonomous intelligence for complex goals–a comprehensive survey. IEEe Access (2025)

work page 2025
[2]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02258 (2025) 14

Zhang, W., Guo, J., Zhang, H., Zhang, P., Chen, J., Zhang, S., Zhang, Z., Yi, Y., Bu, H.: Patho-agenticrag: Towards multimodal agentic retrieval- augmented generation for pathology vlms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02258 (2025) 14

arXiv 2025
[3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18115 (2025)

Shimgekar, S.R., Vassef, S., Goyal, A., Kumar, N., Saha, K.: Agentic ai framework for end-to-end medical data inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18115 (2025)

arXiv 2025
[4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00235 (2025)

He, Y., Li, A., Liu, B., Yao, Z., He, Y.: Medorch: Medical diagnosis with tool-augmented reasoning agents for flexible extensibility. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00235 (2025)

arXiv 2025
[5]

European Journal of Radiology 181, 111783 (2024)

Sridharan, S., Hui, A.S.X., Venkataraman, N., Tirukonda, P.S., Jeyaratnam, R.P., John, S., Babu, S.S., Liew, P., Francis, J., Tzan, T.K.,et al.: Real-world evaluation of an ai triaging system for chest x-rays: A prospective clinical study. European Journal of Radiology 181, 111783 (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02673 (2025)

Fallahpour, A., Ma, J., Munim, A., Lyu, H., Wang, B.: Medrax: Medical reasoning agent for chest x-ray. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02673 (2025)

arXiv 2025
[7]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02483 (2024)

Li, B., Yan, T., Pan, Y., Luo, J., Ji, R., Ding, J., Xu, Z., Liu, S., Dong, H., Lin, Z., et al.: Mmedagent: Learning to use medical tools with multi-modal agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02483 (2024)

arXiv 2024
[8]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Zhou, B., Khosla, A., Lapedriza, A., Oliva, A., Torralba, A.: Learning deep fea- tures for discriminative localization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2921–2929 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 27 references

[9]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Wang, X., Peng, Y., Lu, L., Lu, Z., Bagheri, M., Summers, R.M.: Chestx-ray8: Hospital-scale chest x-ray database and benchmarks on weakly-supervised classi- fication and localization of common thorax diseases. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Patte...
[10]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 79410–79452 (2024)

Kim, Y., Park, C., Jeong, H., Chan, Y.S., Xu, X., McDuff, D., Lee, H., Ghassemi, M., Breazeal, C., Park, H.W.: Mdagents: An adaptive collaboration of llms for medical decision-making. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 79410–79452 (2024)

2024
[11]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18968 (2025)

Wang, Z., Wu, J., Cai, L., Low, C.H., Yang, X., Li, Q., Jin, Y.: Medagent- pro: Towards evidence-based multi-modal medical diagnosis via reasoning agentic workflow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18968 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[12]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00555 (2025)

Xia, P., Wang, J., Peng, Y., Zeng, K., Wu, X., Tang, X., Zhu, H., Li, Y., Liu, S., Lu, Y., et al.: Mmedagent-rl: Optimizing multi-agent collaboration for multimodal medical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00555 (2025)

2025
[13]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08308 (2025)

Zhi, Z., Feng, C., Daneshmend, A., Orlu, M., Demosthenous, A., Yin, L., Li, D., Liu, Z., Rodrigues, M.R.: Seeing and reasoning with confidence: Supercharging multimodal llms with an uncertainty-aware agentic framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08308 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[14]

https://openai.com/index/gpt-4o-system-card/

OpenAI: GPT-4o System Card. https://openai.com/index/gpt-4o-system-card/. 15 Accessed: 2025-08-26 (2024)

2025
[15]

https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-4.1-mini

OpenAI: GPT-4.1 mini. https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-4.1-mini. Accessed: 2025-08-26 (2025)

2025
[16]

OpenAI: Introducing GPT-5
[17]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05201 (2025)

Sellergren, A., Kazemzadeh, S., Jaroensri, T., Kiraly, A., Traverse, M., Kohlberger, T., Xu, S., Jamil, F., Hughes, C., Lau, C., et al.: Medgemma technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05201 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[18]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 28541–28564 (2023)

Li, C., Wong, C., Zhang, S., Usuyama, N., Liu, H., Yang, J., Naumann, T., Poon, H., Gao, J.: Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36, 28541–28564 (2023)

2023
[19]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12208 (2024)

Chen, Z., Varma, M., Delbrouck, J.-B., Paschali, M., Blankemeier, L., Van Veen, D., Valanarasu, J.M.J., Youssef, A., Cohen, J.P., Reis, E.P., et al.: Chexa- gent: Towards a foundation model for chest x-ray interpretation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12208 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[20]

Sankhy¯ a: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A (2008-) 80, 1–7 (2018)

Mahalanobis, P.C.: On the generalized distance in statistics. Sankhy¯ a: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A (2008-) 80, 1–7 (2018)

2008
[21]

Cancer Research 77(21), 104–107 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0339

Griethuysen, J.J.M., Fedorov, A., Parmar, C., Hosny, A., Aucoin, N., Narayan, V., Beets-Tan, R.G.H., Fillon-Robin, J.-C., Pieper, S., Aerts, H.J.W.L.: Compu- tational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Research 77(21), 104–107 (2017) https://doi.org/...

2017 doi
[22]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Han, D., Yun, S., Heo, B., Yoo, Y.: Rethinking channel dimensions for efficient model design. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 732–741 (2021)

2021
[23]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Radosavovic, I., Kosaraju, R.P., Girshick, R., He, K., Doll´ ar, P.: Designing net- work design spaces. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10428–10436 (2020)

2020
[24]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recogni- tion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 770–778 (2016)

2016
[25]

In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, pp

Tan, M., Le, Q.: Efficientnetv2: Smaller models and faster training. In: Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 10096–10106 (2021). PMLR

2021
[26]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter 16 Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, pp

Suvorov, R., Logacheva, E., Mashikhin, A., Remizova, A., Ashukha, A., Silvestrov, A., Kong, N., Goka, H., Park, K., Lempitsky, V.: Resolution-robust large mask inpainting with fourier convolutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter 16 Conference on Applications of Compute...

2022
[27]

https://openai.com/index/gpt-4-1/

OpenAI: Introducing GPT-4.1 in the API. https://openai.com/index/gpt-4-1/. Accessed: 2025-08-26 (2025) 17

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

IEEe Access (2025)

Acharya, D.B., Kuppan, K., Divya, B.: Agentic ai: Autonomous intelligence for complex goals–a comprehensive survey. IEEe Access (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [2]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02258 (2025) 14

Zhang, W., Guo, J., Zhang, H., Zhang, P., Chen, J., Zhang, S., Zhang, Z., Yi, Y., Bu, H.: Patho-agenticrag: Towards multimodal agentic retrieval- augmented generation for pathology vlms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02258 (2025) 14

arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18115 (2025)

Shimgekar, S.R., Vassef, S., Goyal, A., Kumar, N., Saha, K.: Agentic ai framework for end-to-end medical data inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18115 (2025)

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00235 (2025)

He, Y., Li, A., Liu, B., Yao, Z., He, Y.: Medorch: Medical diagnosis with tool-augmented reasoning agents for flexible extensibility. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00235 (2025)

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

European Journal of Radiology 181, 111783 (2024)

Sridharan, S., Hui, A.S.X., Venkataraman, N., Tirukonda, P.S., Jeyaratnam, R.P., John, S., Babu, S.S., Liew, P., Francis, J., Tzan, T.K.,et al.: Real-world evaluation of an ai triaging system for chest x-rays: A prospective clinical study. European Journal of Radiology 181, 111783 (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02673 (2025)

Fallahpour, A., Ma, J., Munim, A., Lyu, H., Wang, B.: Medrax: Medical reasoning agent for chest x-ray. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02673 (2025)

arXiv 2025

[7] [7]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02483 (2024)

Li, B., Yan, T., Pan, Y., Luo, J., Ji, R., Ding, J., Xu, Z., Liu, S., Dong, H., Lin, Z., et al.: Mmedagent: Learning to use medical tools with multi-modal agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02483 (2024)

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Zhou, B., Khosla, A., Lapedriza, A., Oliva, A., Torralba, A.: Learning deep fea- tures for discriminative localization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 2921–2929 (2016)

work page 2016