CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 24Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

AgentClinic: a multimodal agent benchmark to evaluate AI in simulated clinical environments

Open access
Schmidgall, Samuel, Ziaei, Rojin, Harris, Carl, Reis, Eduardo, Jopling, Jeffrey, Moor, Michael·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2405.07960arXiv 2405.07960
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Evaluating large language models (LLM) in clinical scenarios is crucial to assessing their potential clinical utility. Existing benchmarks rely heavily on static question-answering, which does not accurately depict the complex, sequential nature of clinical decision-making. Here, we introduce AgentClinic, a multimodal agent benchmark for evaluating LLMs in simulated clinical environments that include patient interactions, multimodal data collection under incomplete information, and the usage of various tools, resulting in an in-depth evaluation across nine medical specialties and seven languages. We find that solving MedQA problems in the sequential decision-making format of AgentClinic is considerably more challenging, resulting in diagnostic accuracies that can drop to below a tenth of the original accuracy. Overall, we observe that agents sourced from Claude-3.5 outperform other LLM backbones in most settings. Nevertheless, we see stark differences in the LLMs' ability to make use of tools, such as experiential learning, adaptive retrieval, and reflection cycles. Strikingly, Llama-3 shows up to 92% relative improvements with the notebook tool that allows for writing and editing notes that persist across cases. To further scrutinize our clinical simulations, we leverage real-world electronic health records, perform a clinical reader study, perturb agents with biases, and explore novel patient-centric metrics that this interactive environment firstly enables.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2405.07960

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Even when image inputs are removed, retained textual descriptions of each case are typically sufficient to support clinically meaningful judgments.

    “As a result, even under experimental settings where image inputs are removed, the retained textual descriptions of each case are typically sufficient to support clinically meaningful judgments.”

    From MDTeamGPT: Mitigating Context Collapse and Enabling Self-Evolution in Medical Multi-Agent Reasoning (2026) · cites this paper as Schmidgall et al., 2024

    Section 3.7 says earlier experiments supplied measurement results through text, and the Discussion reports diagnostic accuracy in the benchmark. But the paper does not report removing images from the same cases or establish that their retained text was typically sufficient for clinically meaningful judgments. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The AgentClinic multimodal dataset construction protocol has the key advantage of completeness of clinical textual information.

    “The key advantage of this paradigm lies in the completeness of its clinical textual information.”

    From MDTeamGPT: Mitigating Context Collapse and Enabling Self-Evolution in Medical Multi-Agent Reasoning (2026) · cites this paper as Schmidgall et al., 2024

    The dataset table (Additional information, page unavailable) describes AgentClinic’s text and multimodal cases, and Appendix H.1 says the MIMIC-IV cases include corresponding lab events and medical records. Neither passage identifies completeness of clinical textual information as a key advantage of the multimodal dataset construction protocol. Searches for that phrase and for complete clinical text in the construction protocol found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 24

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11511, 2023. · arXiv
  2. Jennifer S Blumenthal-Barby and Heather Krieger. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Medical Decision Making, 35(4): 539-557, 2015.
  3. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901, 2020.
  4. Crystal Tin-Tin Chang, Hodan Farah, Haiwen Gui, Shawheen Justin Rezaei, Charbel Bou-Khalil, Ye-Jean Park, Akshay Swaminathan, Jesutofunmi A Omiye, Akaash Kolluri, Akash Chaurasia, et al. Red teaming large language models in medicine: Real-world insights on model behavior. medRxiv, pp. 2024-04, 2024.
  5. Zeming Chen, Alejandro Hernández Cano, Angelika Romanou, Antoine Bonnet, Kyle Matoba, Francesco Salvi, Matteo Pagliardini, Simin Fan, Andreas Köpf, Amirkeivan Mohtashami, et al. Meditron-70b: Scaling medical pretraining for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16079, 2023. · arXiv
  6. Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017.
  7. Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325, 2023. · arXiv
  8. John W Ely, Jerome A Osheroff, Mark H Ebell, George R Bergus, Barcey T Levy, M Lee Chambliss, and Eric R Evans. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. Bmj, 319 (7206):358-361, 1999.
  9. Chloë FitzGerald and Samia Hurst. Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. BMC medical ethics, 18:1-18, 2017.
  10. Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2023. · arXiv
  11. Dipesh P Gopal, Ula Chetty, Patrick O'Donnell, Camille Gajria, and Jodie Blackadder-Weinstein. Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making. Future healthcare journal, 8(1):40, 2021.
  12. Ojas Gramopadhye, Saeel Sandeep Nachane, Prateek Chanda, Ganesh Ramakrishnan, Kshitij Sharad Jadhav, Yatin Nandwani, Dinesh Raghu, and Sachindra Joshi. Few shot chain-of-thought driven rea- soning to prompt llms for open ended medical question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04890, 2024. · arXiv
  13. Yu Gu, Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Michael Lucas, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, and Hoifung Poon. Domain-specific language model pretraining for biomedical natural language processing. ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare (HEALTH), 3(1):1-23, 2021.
  14. M Elizabeth H Hammond, Josef Stehlik, Stavros G Drakos, and Abdallah G Kfoury. Bias in medicine: lessons learned and mitigation strategies. Basic to Translational Science, 6(1):78-85, 2021.
  15. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300, 2020. · arXiv
  16. Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Antoine Roux, Arthur Mensch, Blanche Savary, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Emma Bou Hanna, Florian Bressand, et al. Mixtral of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088, 2024. · arXiv
  17. Zhengbao Jiang, Frank F Xu, Luyu Gao, Zhiqing Sun, Qian Liu, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Graham Neubig. Active retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06983, 2023. · arXiv
  18. Di Jin, Eileen Pan, Nassim Oufattole, Wei-Hung Weng, Hanyi Fang, and Peter Szolovits. What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams. Applied Sciences, 11(14):6421, 2021.
  19. Qiao Jin, Bhuwan Dhingra, Zhengping Liu, William W Cohen, and Xinghua Lu. Pubmedqa: A dataset for biomedical research question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06146, 2019. · arXiv
  20. Alistair EW Johnson, Lucas Bulgarelli, Lu Shen, Alvin Gayles, Ayad Shammout, Steven Horng, Tom J Pollard, Sicheng Hao, Benjamin Moody, Brian Gow, et al. Mimic-iv, a freely accessible electronic health record dataset. Scientific data, 10(1):1, 2023.
  21. Shreya Johri, Jaehwan Jeong, Benjamin A Tran, Daniel I Schlessinger, Shannon Wongvibulsin, Zhuo Ran Cai, Roxana Daneshjou, and Pranav Rajpurkar. Guidelines for rigorous evaluation of clinical llms for conversational reasoning. medRxiv, pp. 2023-09, 2023.
  22. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 22199-22213, 2022.
  23. Junkai Li, Siyu Wang, Meng Zhang, Weitao Li, Yunghwei Lai, Xinhui Kang, Weizhi Ma, and Yang Liu. Agent hospital: A simulacrum of hospital with evolvable medical agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02957, 2024. · arXiv
  24. Yusheng Liao, Yutong Meng, Yuhao Wang, Hongcheng Liu, Yanfeng Wang, and Yu Wang. Automatic interactive evaluation for large language models with state aware patient simulator. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08495, 2024. · arXiv
  25. Valentin Liévin, Christoffer Egeberg Hother, and Ole Winther. Can large language models reason about medical questions? arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.08143, 2022. · arXiv
  26. Conner V Lombardi, Neejad T Chidiac, Benjamin C Record, and Jeremy J Laukka. Usmle step 1 and step 2 ck as indicators of resident performance. BMC Medical Education, 23(1):543, 2023.
  27. Zixian Ma, Weikai Huang, Jieyu Zhang, Tanmay Gupta, and Ranjay Krishna. m&m's: A benchmark to evaluate tool-use for multi-step multi-modal tasks. In Synthetic Data for Computer Vision Workshop@ CVPR 2024, 2024.
  28. Daniel McIntyre and Clara K Chow. Waiting time as an indicator for health services under strain: a narrative review. INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care Organization, Provision, and Financing, 57: 0046958020910305, 2020.
  29. Donald E Melnick, Gerard F Dillon, and David B Swanson. Medical licensing examinations in the united states. Journal of dental education, 66(5):595-599, 2002.
  30. Harsha Nori, Yin Tat Lee, Sheng Zhang, Dean Carignan, Richard Edgar, Nicolo Fusi, Nicholas King, Jonathan Larson, Yuanzhi Li, Weishung Liu, et al. Can generalist foundation models outcompete special-purpose tuning? case study in medicine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16452, 2023. · arXiv
  31. Jesutofunmi A Omiye, Jenna C Lester, Simon Spichak, Veronica Rotemberg, and Roxana Daneshjou. Large language models propagate race-based medicine. NPJ Digital Medicine, 6(1):195, 2023.
  32. Ankit Pal, Logesh Kumar Umapathi, and Malaikannan Sankarasubbu. Medmcqa: A large-scale multi- subject multi-choice dataset for medical domain question answering. In Conference on health, inference, and learning, pp. 248-260. PMLR, 2022.
  33. Joon Sung Park, Joseph O'Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 1-22, 2023.
  34. Stephen R Pfohl, Heather Cole-Lewis, Rory Sayres, Darlene Neal, Mercy Asiedu, Awa Dieng, Nenad Tomasev, Qazi Mamunur Rashid, Shekoofeh Azizi, Negar Rostamzadeh, et al. A toolbox for surfacing health equity harms and biases in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12025, 2024. · arXiv
  35. Yujia Qin, Shengding Hu, Yankai Lin, Weize Chen, Ning Ding, Ganqu Cui, Zheni Zeng, Yufei Huang, Chaojun Xiao, Chi Han, Yi Ren Fung, Yusheng Su, Huadong Wang, Cheng Qian, Runchu Tian, Kunlun Zhu, Shihao Liang, Xingyu Shen, Bokai Xu, Zhen Zhang, Yining Ye, Bowen Li, Ziwei Tang, Jing Yi, Yuzhang Zhu, Zhenning Dai, Lan Yan, Xin Cong, Yaxi Lu, Weilin Zhao, Yuxiang Huang, Junxi Yan, Xu Han, Xian Sun, Dahai Li, Jason Phang, Cheng Yang, Tongshuang Wu, Heng Ji, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Tool learning with foundation models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.08354. · arXiv
  36. Janice A Sabin. Tackling implicit bias in health care. New England Journal of Medicine, 387(2): 105-107, 2022.
  37. Samuel Schmidgall, Carl Harris, Ime Essien, Daniel Olshvang, Tawsifur Rahman, Ji Woong Kim, Rojin Ziaei, Jason Eshraghian, Peter Abadir, and Rama Chellappa. Addressing cognitive bias in medical language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.08113, 2024. · arXiv
  38. Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature, 620(7972):172-180, 2023.
  39. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, Diana L Miglioretti, Eric Johnson, Choonsik Lee, Heather Spencer Feigelson, Michael Flynn, Robert T Greenlee, Randell L Kruger, Mark C Hornbrook, Douglas Roblin, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996-2010. Jama, 307(22):2400-2409, 2012.
  40. Xiangru Tang, Anni Zou, Zhuosheng Zhang, Yilun Zhao, Xingyao Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Mark Gerstein. Medagents: Large language models as collaborators for zero-shot medical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10537, 2023. · arXiv
  41. Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Darren Shu Jeng Ting, Kabilan Elangovan, Laura Gutierrez, Ting Fang Tan, and Daniel Shu Wei Ting. Large language models in medicine. Nature medicine, pp. 1-11, 2023.
  42. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. · arXiv
  43. Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Mike Schaekermann, Khaled Saab, Jan Freyberg, Ryutaro Tanno, Amy Wang, Brenna Li, Mohamed Amin, Nenad Tomasev, et al. Towards conversational diagnostic ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05654, 2024. · arXiv
  44. Akhil Vaid, Isotta Landi, Girish Nadkarni, and Ismail Nabeel. Using fine-tuned large language models to parse clinical notes in musculoskeletal pain disorders. The Lancet Digital Health, 5(12):e855-e858, 2023.
  45. Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science, 18(6):186345, 2024.
  46. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837, 2022.
  47. Guangzhi Xiong, Qiao Jin, Zhiyong Lu, and Aidong Zhang. Benchmarking retrieval-augmented generation for medicine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13178, 2024. · arXiv
  48. Marliyya Zayyan. Objective structured clinical examination: the assessment of choice. Oman medical journal, 26(4):219, 2011.
  49. Andrew Zhao, Daniel Huang, Quentin Xu, Matthieu Lin, Yong-Jin Liu, and Gao Huang. Expel: Llm agents are experiential learners. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pp. 19632-19642, 2024.
  50. Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46595-46623, 2023.
  51. Rojin Ziaei and Samuel Schmidgall. Language models are susceptible to incorrect patient self-diagnosis in medical applications. In Deep Generative Models for Health Workshop NeurIPS 2023, 2023.

Authors
Schmidgall, S., Ziaei, R., Harris, C., Reis, E., Jopling, J., & Moor, M.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (BR)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2405.07960
arXiv
2405.07960
OpenAlex
W4396914156
Cited by
24
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
large language models, clinical decision-making, simulated clinical environment, MedQA, sequential decision making, tool use, LLM bias, electronic health records, Llama 3, Claude 3.5, medical specialties

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