Clinical feature extraction from pathology reports is challenging because relevant evidence may be distributed across coded and narrative fields and depend on specimen attribution, negation, ancillary findings, and diagnostic context. We retrospectively evaluated the NimbleMind Multi-Agent System (nMAS), a configurable workflow that separates clinician-defined field specifications from extraction models and returns report-level predictions with source-linked evidence. The study included 54 dummy gastric biopsy pathology reports from Singapore and four binary target fields, yielding 216 feature-case decisions. nMAS correctly classified 213 of 216 decisions (98.61\%), and all evidence spans associated with correct predictions occurred verbatim in the corresponding source reports. All three errors occurred in the two context-dependent \textit{H. pylori}-related fields requiring negation handling or diagnostic attribution. A single-model UMA-style comparator produced the similar label-level performance and error pattern. These findings do not demonstrate predictive superiority for the multi-agent architecture.Rather, the contribution of nMAS lies in workflow integration and traceability through configurable field specifications, complexity-based routing, report-level aggregation, and source-text validation within a clinician-reviewable workflow. Larger multi-institutional studies should assess generalizability, semantic evidence quality, adaptation effort, and clinician verification time.
Yufan Wang, Anit Kumar Sahu, Y. Ng et al.· 1 citation
This work presents a source-grounded framework to construct progressive multimodal diagnostic dialogues from case reports and an evaluation strategy for assessing MLLMs on final diagnosis, diagnostic reasoning, and image-finding interpretation and demonstrates that fluent responses do not necessarily reflect evidence-grounded clinical reasoning.
Clinical diagnostic evaluation should not only assess whether models can provide correct diagnoses, but also reflect the realities of clinical practice, including progressive disclosure of multimodal information, dynamic updating of diagnostic hypotheses, and continuous refinement of clinical reasoning. However, existing evaluations of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) typically rely on single-turn or isolated tasks, making it difficult to fully capture the complexity of real-world clinical diagnosis. To bridge this gap, we developed ClinMM-Bench, the largest multi-turn multimodal clinical diagnostic evaluation benchmark to date. ClinMM-Bench contains 1,089 challenging real-world clinical cases and 3,760 medical images across eight specialties. We systematically evaluated 15 representative MLLMs using a two-level evaluation framework that assessed both diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic reasoning quality. Results showed that proprietary models achieved the highest overall diagnostic accuracy, but the proportion of completely correct diagnoses remained limited across all models. In terms of diagnostic reasoning quality, current models can identify plausible diagnostic directions but still have considerable limitations in generating reliable diagnostic reasoning. Error analysis further identified five representative failure modes: information synthesis failure, knowledge mapping error, perception error, premature closure, and visual hallucination.
