pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16729 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

Agentic Large Language Models for Training-Free Neuro-Radiological Image Analysis

Ayhan Can Erdur , Daniel Scholz , Jiazhen Pan , Benedikt Wiestler , Daniel Rueckert , Jan C. Peeken
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 08:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AI
keywords agenticanalysiscomplexllmsmodelsvolumetricimagelanguage
0
0 comments X

The pith

Agentic LLMs autonomously execute complex neuro-radiological workflows like glioma segmentation and multi-timepoint response assessment by directing off-the-shelf tools, without any model training.

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

Large language models are strong at general visual questions but lack native 3D spatial reasoning needed for volumetric scans such as brain MRIs. This work tests whether an agentic setup can bypass that limit: the LLM does not analyze the images itself but instead plans and calls a sequence of existing specialized tools to handle each step. The pipeline covers skull stripping, image registration, segmentation of gliomas, meningiomas or metastases, volume calculations, and comparison of scans taken at different times to judge treatment response. Experiments used several frontier models including GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.5, and compared a single-agent design against multi-agent teams of domain specialists. A new benchmark of image-prompt-answer tuples derived from public BraTS data was released to support future testing. The central result is that these tool-using agents completed the full radiological tasks without any training or fine-tuning on medical data.

Core claim

Our results demonstrate that agentic AI can solve highly neuro-radiological image analysis tasks through tool use without the need for training or fine-tuning.

Load-bearing premise

That frontier LLMs can reliably plan and execute error-free multi-step tool orchestration for clinically accurate outputs in complex workflows such as longitudinal response assessment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16729 by Ayhan Can Erdur, Benedikt Wiestler, Daniel Rueckert, Daniel Scholz, Jan C. Peeken, Jiazhen Pan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An overview of how the agentic brain MRI analysis works on an exemplary case. Agent Architectures We investigate four variants of agent architectures. In the single-agent setting, one agent has access to all tools, plans the workflow, and executes it. This requires exposing every tool description to the LLM as input tokens. To reduce the burden on a monolithic agent and to inject only task-relevant knowled… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Different designs of multi-agent setup Dataset We construct a brain MRI VQA dataset to benchmark our agent archi￾tectures. Each entry comprises a free-text question, an expected tool-call plan, and an expected keyword-value answer. For each of the four architectures, we define a corresponding ground-truth tool sequence that includes agent handoffs and requests. Imaging data are primarily sourced from the p… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

State-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) show high performance in general visual question answering. However, a fundamental limitation remains: current architectures lack the native 3D spatial reasoning required for direct analysis of volumetric medical imaging, such as CT or MRI. Emerging agentic AI offers a new solution, eliminating the need for intrinsic 3D processing by enabling LLMs to orchestrate and leverage specialized external tools. Yet, the feasibility of such agentic frameworks in complex, multi-step radiological workflows remains underexplored. In this work, we present a training-free agentic pipeline for automated brain MRI analysis. Validating our methodology on several LLMs (GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5) with off-the-shelf domain-specific tools, our system autonomously executes complex end-to-end workflows, including preprocessing (skull stripping, registration), pathology segmentation (glioma, meningioma, metastases), and volumetric analysis. We evaluate our framework across increasingly complex radiological tasks, from single-scan segmentation and volumetric reporting to longitudinal response assessment requiring multi-timepoint comparisons. We analyze the impact of architectural design by comparing single-agent models against multi-agent "domain-expert" collaborations. Finally, to support rigorous evaluation of future agentic systems, we introduce and release a benchmark dataset of image-prompt-answer tuples derived from public BraTS data. Our results demonstrate that agentic AI can solve highly neuro-radiological image analysis tasks through tool use without the need for training or fine-tuning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper presents a training-free agentic pipeline in which frontier LLMs (GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5) orchestrate off-the-shelf tools to perform end-to-end neuro-radiological workflows on brain MRI: skull-stripping, registration, glioma/meningioma/metastases segmentation, volumetric reporting, and longitudinal response assessment across multiple time points. It compares single-agent versus multi-agent “domain-expert” architectures and releases a BraTS-derived benchmark of image-prompt-answer tuples.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated, the work would demonstrate that agentic tool orchestration can substitute for native 3D reasoning in clinically relevant multi-step radiological pipelines without any training or fine-tuning. The public benchmark would be a concrete, reusable contribution for evaluating future agentic medical-image systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Evaluation] Abstract and evaluation sections: the central claim that the system “autonomously executes complex end-to-end workflows” and “solves highly neuro-radiological image analysis tasks” is unsupported by any reported quantitative metrics (Dice scores, volumetric error, registration TRE, per-step tool-success rates, or expert-agreement statistics), especially on the longitudinal multi-timepoint subset.
  2. [Evaluation / Results] The load-bearing assumption that LLM-driven planning produces error-free multi-step orchestration (skull-stripping → registration → segmentation → volumetric comparison) is not tested; no per-step failure rates, prompt-sensitivity results, or propagation analysis across time points are provided, leaving the reliability of the longitudinal response-assessment task unquantified.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by stating the number of cases, time-point pairs, and exact tool versions used in the reported experiments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comments correctly identify gaps in quantitative evaluation that strengthen the manuscript. We address each point below and have incorporated revisions to provide the requested metrics and analyses.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Evaluation] Abstract and evaluation sections: the central claim that the system “autonomously executes complex end-to-end workflows” and “solves highly neuro-radiological image analysis tasks” is unsupported by any reported quantitative metrics (Dice scores, volumetric error, registration TRE, per-step tool-success rates, or expert-agreement statistics), especially on the longitudinal multi-timepoint subset.

    Authors: We agree that the original abstract and evaluation sections overstate the claims without sufficient supporting numbers. The manuscript's evaluation focused on workflow completion via the released benchmark but omitted explicit per-step rates and standard image metrics. Because the agent orchestrates existing tools (whose Dice/TRE performance is documented in the tool papers), our primary metric is orchestration success rather than re-deriving segmentation accuracy. In the revised manuscript we have added: (1) a table of per-step tool-success rates and overall workflow completion (single-agent vs. multi-agent), (2) volumetric error and registration TRE computed against BraTS ground truth for the executed pipelines, and (3) a dedicated longitudinal subsection reporting failure-propagation statistics and expert agreement on response-assessment outputs. These changes directly support the central claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation / Results] The load-bearing assumption that LLM-driven planning produces error-free multi-step orchestration (skull-stripping → registration → segmentation → volumetric comparison) is not tested; no per-step failure rates, prompt-sensitivity results, or propagation analysis across time points are provided, leaving the reliability of the longitudinal response-assessment task unquantified.

    Authors: This observation is accurate. The initial Results section presented successful end-to-end examples without systematic quantification of failure modes or sensitivity. We have revised the Evaluation section to include: per-step failure rates across the full benchmark suite, prompt-sensitivity experiments (varying temperature and few-shot examples), and a propagation analysis that tracks how early-step errors affect final longitudinal response assessment. These additions quantify the reliability of the multi-timepoint task and allow readers to assess the load-bearing assumption. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical architecture with external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper describes a training-free agentic pipeline that orchestrates off-the-shelf tools (skull-stripping, registration, segmentation) via frontier LLMs for brain MRI tasks. No equations, fitted parameters, self-referential predictions, or mathematical derivations appear in the provided text or abstract. Claims rest on experimental evaluation across single- vs. multi-agent setups and a released BraTS-derived benchmark, which are independent of any internal definitions or self-citations. The load-bearing elements are tool-use success rates and clinical accuracy on held-out data, not reductions to the paper's own inputs. This matches the default expectation of no significant circularity for empirical systems.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unverified assumption that current LLMs possess reliable multi-step planning and tool-calling abilities sufficient for medical accuracy; no free parameters or new entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Large language models possess sufficient planning and tool-calling capabilities to autonomously manage multi-step medical image processing pipelines.
    This assumption underpins the entire agentic framework and is tested empirically but not derived or proven in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5596 in / 1325 out tokens · 65625 ms · 2026-05-10T08:21:58.471637+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Towards a Virtual Neuroscientist: Autonomous Neuroimaging Analysis via Multi-Agent Collaboration

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    NIAgent uses code-centric multi-agent collaboration and hierarchical verification to build adaptive neuroimaging pipelines that outperform static baselines on ADHD-200 and ADNI data.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    In: International Conference on Med- ical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

    Almansoori,M.,Kumar,K.,Cholakkal,H.:Medagentsim:Self-evolvingmulti-agent simulations for realistic clinical interactions. In: International Conference on Med- ical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 362–372. Springer (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    Neuroimage54(3), 2033–2044 (2011)

    Avants, B.B., Tustison, N.J., Song, G., Cook, P.A., Klein, A., Gee, J.C.: A repro- ducibleevaluationofantssimilaritymetricperformanceinbrainimageregistration. Neuroimage54(3), 2033–2044 (2011)

    2033

  3. [3]

    M3d:Ad- vancing 3d medical image analysis with multi-modal large language models

    Bai, F., Du, Y., Huang, T., Meng, M.Q.H., Zhao, B.: M3d: Advancing 3d medical image analysis with multi-modal large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00578 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    The RSNA-ASNR-MICCAI BraTS 2021 Benchmark on Brain Tumor Segmentation and Radiogenomic Classification

    Baid, U., Ghodasara, S., Mohan, S., Bilello, M., Calabrese, E., Colak, E., et al.: The rsna-asnr-miccai brats 2021 benchmark on brain tumor segmentation and radiogenomic classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02314 (2021)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Medical image analysis86, 102789 (2023)

    Billot, B., Greve, D.N., Puonti, O., Thielscher, A., Van Leemput, K., Fischl, B., et al.: Synthseg: Segmentation of brain mri scans of any contrast and resolution without retraining. Medical image analysis86, 102789 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Strahlentherapie und Onkologie201(3), 236–254 (2025)

    Erdur, A.C., Rusche, D., Scholz, D., Kiechle, J., Fischer, S., Llorian-Salvador, O., et al.: Deep learning for autosegmentation for radiotherapy treatment planning: State-of-the-art and novel perspectives. Strahlentherapie und Onkologie201(3), 236–254 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Eriksen, A.V., Möller, S., Ryg, J.: Use of gpt-4 to diagnose complex clinical cases (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Medrax: Medical reasoning agent for chest x-ray, 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)

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    NeuroImage260, 119474 (2022)

    Hoopes, A., Mora, J.S., Dalca, A.V., Fischl, B., Hoffmann, M.: Synthstrip: skull- stripping for any brain image. NeuroImage260, 119474 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    Journal of neuroscience methods374, 109566 (2022)

    Joshi, A.A., Choi, S., Liu, Y., Chong, M., Sonkar, G., Gonzalez-Martinez, J., et al.: A hybrid high-resolution anatomical mri atlas with sub-parcellation of cortical gyri using resting fmri. Journal of neuroscience methods374, 109566 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    BMC medicine 17(1), 195 (2019)

    Kelly, C.J., Karthikesalingam, A., Suleyman, M., Corrado, G., King, D.: Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence. BMC medicine 17(1), 195 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    Kofler, F., Möller, H., Buchner, J.A., de la Rosa, E., Ezhov, I., Rosier, M., et al.: Panoptica – instance-wise evaluation of 3d semantic and instance segmentation maps (2023) 10 Erdur et al

    2023

  13. [13]

    Kofler, F., Rosier, M., Astaraki, M., Baid, U., Möller, H., et al.: Brats orchestrator : Democratizing and disseminating state-of-the-art brain tumor image analysis (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13807

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07642 , year=

    LaBella, D., Adewole, M., Alonso-Basanta, M., Altes, T., Anwar, S.M., Baid, U., et al.: The asnr-miccai brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge 2023: Intracra- nial meningioma. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07642 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    E3d-gpt: Enhanced 3d visual foundation for medical vision-language model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14200,

    Lai, H., Jiang, Z., Yao, Q., Wang, R., He, Z., Tao, X., et al.: E3d-gpt: en- hanced 3d visual foundation for medical vision-language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14200 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 28541–28564 (2023)

    Li, C., Wong, C., Zhang, S., Usuyama, N., Liu, H., Yang, J., et al.: Llava-med: Training a large language-and-vision assistant for biomedicine in one day. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems36, 28541–28564 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    A co-evolving agentic ai system for medical imaging analysis, 2025

    Li, S., Xu, J., Bao, T., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, Y., et al.: A co-evolving agentic ai system for medical imaging analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.20279 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.10683 (2025)

    Liu, F., Yoo, J.J., Khalvati, F.: A comparison and evaluation of fine-tuned con- volutional neural networks to large language models for image classification and segmentation of brain tumors on mri. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.10683 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    IEEE transac- tions on medical imaging34(10), 1993–2024 (2014)

    Menze, B.H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Farahani, K., et al.: The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (brats). IEEE transac- tions on medical imaging34(10), 1993–2024 (2014)

    1993

  20. [20]

    arxiv pp

    Moawad, A.W., Janas, A., Baid, U., Ramakrishnan, D., Saluja, R., Ashraf, N., etal.:Thebraintumorsegmentation-metastases(brats-mets)challenge2023:Brain metastasis segmentation on pre-treatment mri. arxiv pp. arXiv–2306 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    In: Machine learning for health (ML4H)

    Moor, M., Huang, Q., Wu, S., Yasunaga, M., Dalmia, Y., Leskovec, J., et al.: Med- flamingo: a multimodal medical few-shot learner. In: Machine learning for health (ML4H). pp. 353–367. PMLR (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00846 (2025)

    Peng, Z., Wang, C., Liu, S., Liang, Z., Ye, Z., Ju, M., et al.: Omnibrainbench: A comprehensive multimodal benchmark for brain imaging analysis across multi- stage clinical tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00846 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10865 (2025)

    Safari, M., Wang, S., Hu, M., Eidex, Z., Li, Q., Yang, X.: Performance of gpt-5 in brain tumor mri reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10865 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Advances in neural information processing systems36, 68539–68551 (2023)

    Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Hambro, E., et al.: Toolformer: Language models can teach themselves to use tools. Advances in neural information processing systems36, 68539–68551 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    Nature medicine29(8), 1930–1940 (2023)

    Thirunavukarasu, A.J., Ting, D.S.J., Elangovan, K., Gutierrez, L., Tan, T.F., Ting, D.S.W.: Large language models in medicine. Nature medicine29(8), 1930–1940 (2023)

    1930

  26. [26]

    Cancer research77(21), e104–e107 (2017)

    Van Griethuysen, J.J., Fedorov, A., Parmar, C., Hosny, A., Aucoin, N., Narayan, V., et al.: Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer research77(21), e104–e107 (2017)

    2017

  27. [27]

    C.et al.The 2024 brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge: Glioma segmentation on post-treatment mri.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18368(2024)

    de Verdier, M.C., Saluja, R., Gagnon, L., LaBella, D., Baid, U., Tahon, N.H., et al.: The 2024 brain tumor segmentation (brats) challenge: Glioma segmentation on post-treatment mri. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18368 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2025)

    Xin, Y., Ates, G.C., Gong, K., Shao, W.: Med3dvlm: An efficient vision-language model for 3d medical image analysis. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents

    Yehudai, A., Eden, L., Li, A., Uziel, G., Zhao, Y., Bar-Haim, R., et al.: Survey on evaluation of llm-based agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16416 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025