LLM-augmented multi-agent cooperative framework for medical case retrieval in cardiology
Open accessAbstract
Retrieving relevant medical cases or documents is a critical information retrieval (IR) task in clinical decision support, particularly in cardiology, yet traditional search methods struggle with complex semantic queries in healthcare. Recent advances in large language models offer powerful language understanding, but LLMs alone cannot reliably retrieve factual cases due to knowledge cutoffs and hallucinations. We focus on a case retrieval task – given a textual description of a patient case, find similar prior cases or pertinent literature – formulated as a general IR problem rather than a purely medical study. Conventional lexical methods often miss semantic similarities, while static dense retrievers falter on out-of-domain medical vocabularies. LLMs can comprehend queries and context, but without external knowledge they may produce inaccurate or non-transparent results. We propose a novel LLM-augmented multi-agent retrieval framework that marries an LLM with dedicated retrieval agents in an iterative cooperation mechanism. Our method uses a LLM as a “planner” agent to reformulate queries and integrate medical (e.g., cardiology) context, and a retrieval agent (with a knowledge index) to fetch candidate cases; the agents interact iteratively, refining search and reranking results via a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) loop. This multi-agent design contributes three innovations: (1) an iterative query refinement strategy guided by LLM reasoning chains; (2) a cooperative retrieval architecture where an LLM agent and a search agent exchange information to improve relevance; (3) an LLM-based relevance estimator that grounds the LLM with retrieved evidence to mitigate hallucinations. Experiments on three open medical text datasets show our method outperforms baseline models by 5.3–6.1 percentage points in Recall@10 and NDCG, with statistically significant gains. We also observe improved generalization to novel conditions and robustness to query noise compared to baselines. The proposed framework, while validated on medical text, is broadly applicable to other knowledge-intensive retrieval tasks (legal case search, technical support archives), providing a foundation for intelligent IR systems that leverage both learning-based understanding and explicit retrieval for transparency and up-to-date knowledge.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research has shifted toward multi-agent architectures, where multiple specialised agents collaborate through structured communication to enhance reasoning and reliability.
“To overcome these limitations, research has shifted toward multiagent architectures, where multiple specialised agents collaborate through structured communication to enhance reasoning and reliability.”
From Multi-Agent Retrieval Augmented Generation for Clinical Decision Support: A Systematic Review and Integrative Conceptual Framework (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
These include planner, retriever and verifier agent patterns for diagnosis and treatment recommendations, multi-agent conversational frameworks for transparent reasoning and multi-agent RAG systems for medical question answering.
“These include planner, retriever and verifier agent patterns for diagnosis and treatment recommendations [11], multi-agent conversational frameworks for transparent reasoning and multi-agent retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems for medical question answering [12].”
From Multi-Agent Retrieval Augmented Generation for Clinical Decision Support: A Systematic Review and Integrative Conceptual Framework (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Cites
Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation
Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3571730 · Cited by 5,025 · cited 3× · see citing works
“, LLMs struggle because their knowledge is frozen at training time and may be incomplete or outdated (Ji et al. 2023).”
InfluentialDense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering
Karpukhin, V., Oguz, B., Min, S., Lewis, P., Wu, L., Edunov, S., Chen, D., & Yih, W.-T. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550 · Cited by 3,575 · see citing works
Miotto, R., Li, L., Kidd, B. A., & Dudley, J. T. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep26094 · Cited by 1,710 · see citing works
Reading Wikipedia to answer open-domain questions
Chen, D., Fisch, A., Weston, J., & Bordes, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1171 · Cited by 1,546 · see citing works
ColBERT: Efficient and Effective Passage Search via Contextualized Late Interaction over BERT
Khattab, O., & Zaharia, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3397271.3401075 · Cited by 1,301 · see citing works
Nogueira, R., & Cho, K. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.04085 · Cited by 615 · see citing works
Almanac — Retrieval-Augmented Language Models for Clinical Medicine
Zakka, C., Shad, R., Chaurasia, A., Dalal, A. R., Kim, J. L., Moor, M., Fong, R., Phillips, C., Alexander, K., Ashley, E., et al. (2024) · NEJM AI · doi:10.1056/aioa2300068 · Cited by 424 · see citing works
Precise Zero-Shot Dense Retrieval without Relevance Labels
Gao, L., Ma, X., Lin, J., & Callan, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.99 · Cited by 362 · see citing works
ColBERTv2: Effective and Efficient Retrieval via Lightweight Late Interaction
Santhanam, K., Khattab, O., Saad-Falcon, J., Potts, C., & Zaharia, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.272 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Medicine
Xiong, G., Jin, Q., Lu, Z., & Zhang, A. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.372 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mugambiwa, T., & Ndlovu, B. (2026) · Journal of Applied Informatics and Computing · doi:10.30871/jaic.v10i1.11900 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“These include planner, retriever and verifier agent patterns for diagnosis and treatment recommendations [11], multi-agent conversational frameworks for transparent reasoning and multi-agent retrieval augmented generation (RAG) systems for medical question answering [12].”
- Authors
- Deng, L., Hu, H., Lu, K., & He, P.
- Affiliations
- Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- He, Ping
- Venue
- Journal of King Saud University Computer and Information Sciences
- Published
- 2025-10-20
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 9
- ISSN
- 1319-1578 (ISSN-L)
- 2213-1248
- OpenAlex
- W4415358120
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8
- FWCI
- 8.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- cardiology, large language models, retrieval-augmented generation, query refinement, hallucination mitigation, relevance estimation, clinical decision support, semantic similarity, knowledge cutoff, re-ranking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review