arXiv subjects

Renaud Duval

Publications and source records attributed to Renaud Duval.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Deliberative multi-agent large language models improve clinical reasoning in ophthalmology

Large language models (LLMs) show potential for ophthalmic clinical reasoning, yet individual models risk introducing harm. We evaluated whether multi-agent LLM deliberative councils improve diagnostic performance and mitigate harm compared to individual LLMs. In a comparative cross-sectional study, we assessed 12 individual LLMs and three multi-agent councils on 100 ophthalmology clinical vignettes. Each council comprised four models assembled by type: proprietary flagship, proprietary fast, and open-source. Models independently answered a vignette, anonymously ranked one another's responses, and a designated chair synthesized all responses and peer reviews into a final answer. Councils consistently outperformed pooled individual models across all three tiers. Accuracy improved for proprietary flagship (95.0% vs 90.8%; risk difference [RD]: 4.25 [95% CI: 0.45, 8.05]), proprietary fast (96.0% vs 86.5%; RD: 9.50 [5.31, 13.59]), and open-source councils (91.0% vs 83.2%; RD: 7.75 [4.17, 11.33]). Harm rates declined for proprietary flagship (10.0% vs 22.5%; RD: -12.50 [-16.86, -8.14]), proprietary fast (16.0% vs 31.8%; RD: -15.75 [-21.49, -10.01]), and open-source councils (22.0% vs 38.5%; RD: -16.50 [-22.27, -10.73]). Coverage analysis revealed net positive gains for accuracy ({\Delta}Coverage: 4.4-9.8 percentage points) and safety ({\Delta}Coverage: 13.6-20.6), indicating councils recovered correct diagnoses and averted harm. Councils elevated correct diagnoses to higher rank positions; and produced more complete differentials and management plans (all P<.05). Harmful council responses showed reduced combined commission-and-omission errors and tended to be less severe. Structured deliberation via multi-agent LLM councils may enhance the reliability of LLM-assisted ophthalmic clinical reasoning.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Performance of GPT-5 Frontier Models in Ophthalmology Question Answering

Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-5 integrate advanced reasoning capabilities that may improve performance on complex medical question-answering tasks. For this latest generation of reasoning models, the configurations that maximize both accuracy and cost-efficiency have yet to be established. We evaluated 12 configurations of OpenAI's GPT-5 series (three model tiers across four reasoning effort settings) alongside o1-high, o3-high, and GPT-4o, using 260 closed-access multiple-choice questions from the American Academy of Ophthalmology Basic Clinical Science Course (BCSC) dataset. The primary outcome was multiple-choice accuracy; secondary outcomes included head-to-head ranking via a Bradley-Terry model, rationale quality assessment using a reference-anchored, pairwise LLM-as-a-judge framework, and analysis of accuracy-cost trade-offs using token-based cost estimates. GPT-5-high achieved the highest accuracy (0.965; 95% CI, 0.942-0.985), outperforming all GPT-5-nano variants (P < .001), o1-high (P = .04), and GPT-4o (P < .001), but not o3-high (0.958; 95% CI, 0.931-0.981). GPT-5-high ranked first in both accuracy (1.66x stronger than o3-high) and rationale quality (1.11x stronger than o3-high). Cost-accuracy analysis identified several GPT-5 configurations on the Pareto frontier, with GPT-5-mini-low offering the most favorable low-cost, high-performance balance. These results benchmark GPT-5 on a high-quality ophthalmology dataset, demonstrate the influence of reasoning effort on accuracy, and introduce an autograder framework for scalable evaluation of LLM-generated answers against reference standards in ophthalmology.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Multi-style conversion for semantic segmentation of lesions in fundus images by adversarial attacks

The diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy, which relies on fundus images, faces challenges in achieving transparency and interpretability when using a global classification approach. However, segmentation-based databases are significantly more expensive to acquire and combining them is often problematic. This paper introduces a novel method, termed adversarial style conversion, to address the lack of standardization in annotation styles across diverse databases. By training a single architecture on combined databases, the model spontaneously modifies its segmentation style depending on the input, demonstrating the ability to convert among different labeling styles. The proposed methodology adds a linear probe to detect dataset origin based on encoder features and employs adversarial attacks to condition the model's segmentation style. Results indicate significant qualitative and quantitative through dataset combination, offering avenues for improved model generalization, uncertainty estimation and continuous interpolation between annotation styles. Our approach enables training a segmentation model with diverse databases while controlling and leveraging annotation styles for improved retinopathy diagnosis.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2024

MAPLES-DR: MESSIDOR Anatomical and Pathological Labels for Explainable Screening of Diabetic Retinopathy

Reliable automatic diagnosis of Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) and Macular Edema (ME) is an invaluable asset in improving the rate of monitored patients among at-risk populations and in enabling earlier treatments before the pathology progresses and threatens vision. However, the explainability of screening models is still an open question, and specifically designed datasets are required to support the research. We present MAPLES-DR (MESSIDOR Anatomical and Pathological Labels for Explainable Screening of Diabetic Retinopathy), which contains, for 198 images of the MESSIDOR public fundus dataset, new diagnoses for DR and ME as well as new pixel-wise segmentation maps for 10 anatomical and pathological biomarkers related to DR. This paper documents the design choices and the annotation procedure that produced MAPLES-DR, discusses the interobserver variability and the overall quality of the annotations, and provides guidelines on using the dataset in a machine learning context.

eess.IV↗