Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Agents for Clinical Decision Making in Oncology

Dyke Ferber; Omar S. M. El Nahhas; Georg Wölflein; Isabella C. Wiest; Jan Clusmann; Marie-Elisabeth Leßman; Sebastian Foersch; Jacqueline Lammert; Maximilian Tschochohei; Dirk Jäger; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Nikolaus Schultz; Daniel Truhn; Jakob Nikolas Kather

arXiv · 2404.04667

Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Agents for Clinical Decision Making in Oncology

Dyke Ferber·Omar S. M. El Nahhas·Georg Wölflein·Isabella C. Wiest·Jan Clusmann·Marie-Elisabeth Leßman·Sebastian Foersch·Jacqueline Lammert·Maximilian Tschochohei·Dirk Jäger·Manuel Salto-Tellez·Nikolaus Schultz·Daniel Truhn·Jakob Nikolas Kather

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) systems have the potential to enhance clinical decision-making by interpreting various types of medical data. However, the effectiveness of these models across all medical fields is uncertain. Each discipline presents unique challenges that need to be addressed for optimal performance. This complexity is further increased when attempting to integrate different fields into a single model. Here, we introduce an alternative approach to multimodal medical AI that utilizes the generalist capabilities of a large language model (LLM) as a central reasoning engine. This engine autonomously coordinates and deploys a set of specialized medical AI tools. These tools include text, radiology and histopathology image interpretation, genomic data processing, web searches, and document retrieval from medical guidelines. We validate our system across a series of clinical oncology scenarios that closely resemble typical patient care workflows. We show that the system has a high capability in employing appropriate tools (97%), drawing correct conclusions (93.6%), and providing complete (94%), and helpful (89.2%) recommendations for individual patient cases while consistently referencing relevant literature (82.5%) upon instruction. This work provides evidence that LLMs can effectively plan and execute domain-specific models to retrieve or synthesize new information when used as autonomous agents. This enables them to function as specialist, patient-tailored clinical assistants. It also simplifies regulatory compliance by allowing each component tool to be individually validated and approved. We believe, that our work can serve as a proof-of-concept for more advanced LLM-agents in the medical domain.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI q-bio.TO

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Dyke Ferber, Omar S. M. El Nahhas, Georg Wölflein, Isabella C. Wiest, Jan Clusmann, Marie-Elisabeth Leßman, Sebastian Foersch, Jacqueline Lammert, Maximilian Tschochohei, Dirk Jäger, Manuel Salto-Tellez, Nikolaus Schultz, Daniel Truhn, Jakob Nikolas Kather. 2024-04-06. Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Agents for Clinical Decision Making in Oncology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04667

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗