CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 19Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareComputational Drug Discovery Methods

TxAgent: An AI Agent for Therapeutic Reasoning Across a Universe of Tools

Open access
Gao, Shanghua, Zhu, Richard, Kong, Zhenglun, Noori, Ayush, Su, Xiaorui, Ginder, Curtis, Tsiligkaridis, Theodoros, Zitnik, Marinka·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2503.10970arXiv 2503.10970
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Precision therapeutics require multimodal adaptive models that generate personalized treatment recommendations. We introduce TxAgent, an AI agent that leverages multi-step reasoning and real-time biomedical knowledge retrieval across a toolbox of 211 tools to analyze drug interactions, contraindications, and patient-specific treatment strategies. TxAgent evaluates how drugs interact at molecular, pharmacokinetic, and clinical levels, identifies contraindications based on patient comorbidities and concurrent medications, and tailors treatment strategies to individual patient characteristics. It retrieves and synthesizes evidence from multiple biomedical sources, assesses interactions between drugs and patient conditions, and refines treatment recommendations through iterative reasoning. It selects tools based on task objectives and executes structured function calls to solve therapeutic tasks that require clinical reasoning and cross-source validation. The ToolUniverse consolidates 211 tools from trusted sources, including all US FDA-approved drugs since 1939 and validated clinical insights from Open Targets. TxAgent outperforms leading LLMs, tool-use models, and reasoning agents across five new benchmarks: DrugPC, BrandPC, GenericPC, TreatmentPC, and DescriptionPC, covering 3,168 drug reasoning tasks and 456 personalized treatment scenarios. It achieves 92.1% accuracy in open-ended drug reasoning tasks, surpassing GPT-4o and outperforming DeepSeek-R1 (671B) in structured multi-step reasoning. TxAgent generalizes across drug name variants and descriptions. By integrating multi-step inference, real-time knowledge grounding, and tool-assisted decision-making, TxAgent ensures that treatment recommendations align with established clinical guidelines and real-world evidence, reducing the risk of adverse events and improving therapeutic decision-making.

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.2503.10970

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?

  • In LLM agents, excessive reasoning steps can obscure logical clarity and lead to error accumulation.

    “This issue is particularly acute in LLM agents, where internal reasoning alternates with external tool use [37, 138]; excessive steps can obscure logical clarity and lead to error accumulation.”

    From Token Reduction Should Go Beyond Efficiency in Generative Models -- From Vision, Language to Multimodality (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

    The sections on TXAGENT’s multi-step reasoning and tool use describe reasoning thoughts alternating with tool calls and feedback. They do not say that excessive steps obscure logical clarity or cause errors to accumulate. In “The critical role of reasoning in TXAGENT” (page unavailable), accuracy instead improves as the step limit increases, with gains plateauing after about five steps. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Excessive reasoning steps in long chain-of-thought chains may introduce errors or obscure logical clarity, particularly in LLM agents where internal reasoning alternates with external tool use.

    “As mentioned in Sec. 4, long CoT chains can become verbose: excessive reasoning steps may introduce errors or obscure logical clarity, particularly in LLM agents where internal reasoning alternates with external tool use [37, 138].”

    From Token Reduction Should Go Beyond Efficiency in Generative Models -- From Vision, Language to Multimodality (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

    The TXAGENT multi-step reasoning section (page not provided) describes an agent that alternates generated thoughts with tool calls and feedback. The critical-role-of-reasoning section (page not provided) reports that accuracy improves with more inference steps, then plateaus; it does not say excessive steps introduce errors or obscure logical clarity. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Long chain-of-thought chains can become verbose.

    “As mentioned in Sec. 4, long CoT chains can become verbose: excessive reasoning steps may introduce errors or obscure logical clarity, particularly in LLM agents where internal reasoning alternates with external tool use [37, 138].”

    From Token Reduction Should Go Beyond Efficiency in Generative Models -- From Vision, Language to Multimodality (2025) · cites this paper as [37]

    Section 1.2 says lengthy tool outputs can strain the context window, and Section 4.2 describes shortening reasoning-trace samples that exceed the context limit. These passages support a concern about the length of tool-using traces, but they do not say that long chains of thought themselves become verbose or that excessive steps obscure logical clarity. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • TxAgent is an AI system that leverages multi-step reasoning and real-time knowledge retrieval across an extensive toolbox of domain-specific models (over 200 specialized tools in total) to support treatment discovery and optimization.

    “TxAgent is an AI system that leverages multi-step reasoning and real-time knowledge retrieval across an extensive toolbox of domain-specific models (over 200 specialized tools in total) to support treatment discovery and optimization.”

    From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Main and Overview sections describe TxAgent’s multi-step reasoning, real-time biomedical retrieval, and use of 211 tools for treatment recommendations. However, the TOOLUNIVERSE section says many of those tools are built on data-source APIs; the paper does not describe all 211 as domain-specific models. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In benchmarked evaluations, TxAgent achieved 92.1% accuracy on DrugPC (open-ended drug reasoning), and 93.6%/93.7% on BrandPC/GenericPC, outperforming GPT-4o and other tool-use LLMs across 3168 drug reasoning tasks and 456 personalized treatment scenarios.

    “In benchmarked evaluations, TxAgent achieved 92.1% accuracy on DrugPC (open-ended drug reasoning), and 93.6%/93.7% on BrandPC/GenericPC, outperforming GPT-4o and other tool-use LLMs across 3168 drug reasoning tasks and 456 personalized treatment scenarios.”

    From A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

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 19

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. [2]2. Dubey, A. et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024). · arXiv
  2. [4]4. Jiang, A. Q. et al. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825 (2023). · arXiv
  3. [5]5. Touvron, H. et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 (2023). · arXiv
  4. [6]6. Bai, J. et al. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 (2023). · arXiv
  5. [9]9. Chen, Z. et al. Meditron-70b: Scaling medical pretraining for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16079 (2023). · arXiv
  6. [13]13. Liu, W. et al. Toolace: Winning the points of llm function calling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.00920 (2024). · arXiv
  7. [14]14. Gao, Y. et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 (2023). · arXiv
  8. [17]17. Yao, S. et al. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) (2023).
  9. [18]18. Bran, A. M. et al. Chemcrow: Augmenting large-language models with chemistry tools. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05376 (2023). · arXiv
  10. [19]19. Swanson, K., Wu, W., Bulaong, N. L., Pak, J. E. & Zou, J. The virtual lab: Ai agents design new sars-cov-2 nanobodies with experimental validation. bioRxiv 2024-11 (2024).
  11. [20]20. Kass-Hout, T. A. et al. Openfda: an innovative platform providing access to a wealth of fda's publicly available data. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 23 , 596-600 (2016).
  12. [24]24. Gallifant, J. et al. Language models are surprisingly fragile to drug names in biomedical benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12066 (2024). · arXiv
  13. [25]25. Chen, C. et al. Clinicalbench: Can llms beat traditional ml models in clinical prediction? arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06469 (2024). · arXiv
  14. [26]26. Guo, D. et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948 (2025). · arXiv
  15. [27]27. Lewis, P. et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 , 9459-9474 (2020).
  16. [32]32. Matsuo, M. Antisense oligonucleotide-mediated exon-skipping therapies: precision medicine spreading from duchenne muscular dystrophy. JMA journal 4 , 232-240 (2021).
  17. [33]33. Su, X. et al. Multimodal medical code tokenizer. arXiv:2502.04397 (2025). · arXiv
  18. [34]34. Brown, T. et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 , 1877-1901 (2020).
  19. [37]37. Li, Z. et al. Towards general text embeddings with multi-stage contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.03281 (2023). · arXiv
  20. [38]38. Vaswani, A. Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017).
  21. [39]39. Hu, E. J. et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685 (2021). · arXiv
  22. [42]42. Wolf, T. et al. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations , 38-45 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 2020).
  23. [43]43. Rasley, J., Rajbhandari, S., Ruwase, O. & He, Y. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining , 35053506 (2020).
  24. [44]44. Paszke, A. et al. Automatic differentiation in pytorch. In NIPS-W (2017).

Authors
Gao, S., Zhu, R., Kong, Z., Noori, A., Su, X., Ginder, C., Tsiligkaridis, T., & Zitnik, M.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2503.10970
arXiv
2503.10970
OpenAlex
W4417060272
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
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 › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
drug contraindications, personalized treatment recommendations, multi-step reasoning, tool use, FDA-approved drugs, Open Targets, clinical decision support, precision therapy

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