REVIEW 2 cited by
An LLM-Driven Multi-Agent Debate System for Mendelian Diseases
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
An LLM-Driven Multi-Agent Debate System for Mendelian Diseases
read the original abstract
Accurate diagnosis of Mendelian diseases is crucial for precision therapy and assistance in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. However, existing methods often fall short of clinical standards or depend on extensive datasets to build pretrained machine learning models. To address this, we introduce an innovative LLM-Driven multi-agent debate system (MD2GPS) with natural language explanations of the diagnostic results. It utilizes a language model to transform results from data-driven and knowledge-driven agents into natural language, then fostering a debate between these two specialized agents. This system has been tested on 1,185 samples across four independent datasets, enhancing the TOP1 accuracy from 42.9% to 66% on average. Additionally, in a challenging cohort of 72 cases, MD2GPS identified potential pathogenic genes in 12 patients, reducing the diagnostic time by 90%. The methods within each module of this multi-agent debate system are also replaceable, facilitating its adaptation for diagnosing and researching other complex diseases.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
LiteOdyssey: A Lightweight Reasoning AI Agent for Interpretable Rare-Disease Diagnosis
A clinician-audited diagnostic policy plus public tools lets a single unmodified LLM reach high phenotype-first rare-disease Recall@1 and modestly beat baselines on real UDN patients.
-
Evaluating Agentic Bioinformatics through Function, Evidence, and Validation
Agentic bioinformatics systems mostly demonstrate planning and tool execution but rarely prospective empirical validation, so the paper argues evaluation should center on inspectable workflow trajectories (FEV) rather...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.