CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

TeamMedAgents: Pareto-Efficient Multi-Agent Medical Reasoning Through Teamwork Theory

Open access
Mishra, Pranav Pushkar, Arvan, Mohammad, Zalake, Mohan·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2508.08115arXiv 2508.08115
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Complex medical reasoning has historically required frontier language models to achieve clinically-acceptable accuracy, creating computational barriers that limit deployment in resource-constrained clinical settings. We present TeamMedAgents, a modular multi-agent framework that translates Salas et al.'s evidence-based teamwork theory into computational mechanisms--shared mental models, team leadership, team orientation, trust networks, and mutual monitoring--enabling Small Language Models to perform multi-step clinical reasoning efficiently. Evaluation across 8 medical benchmarks demonstrates that TeamMedAgents advances the Pareto efficiency frontier by 1-2 orders of magnitude, achieving competitive accuracy at substantially lower token cost than MDAgents, MedAgents, DyLAN, and ReConcile. The framework exhibits the lowest cross-dataset variance among multi-agent approaches, enabling deployment without per-task tuning. Our results establish that theory-grounded coordination mechanisms provide essential scaffolding for deploying efficient medical AI in resource-constrained clinical environments.

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.2508.08115

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. Agashe, S., Zhang, Y., and Koppel, J. Llm-coordination: Evaluating and analyzing multi-agent coordination abilities in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03903 , 2023. · arXiv
  2. Balachandran, V. et al. Inference-time scaling for complex tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00294 , 2025. · arXiv
  3. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., and Converse, S. Shared mental models in expert team decision making. Individual and Group Decision Making: Current Issues , pp. 221246, 1995.
  4. Chen, H., Fang, Z., Singla, Y., and Dredze, M. Benchmarking large language models on answering and explaining challenging medical questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18060 , 2024a. · arXiv
  5. Chen, J. C.-Y., Saha, S., and Bansal, M. Reconcile: Round-table conference improves reasoning via consensus among diverse llms. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) , 2024b. arXiv:2309.13007. · arXiv
  6. Chen, L., Zaharia, M., and Zou, J. Frugalgpt: How to use large language models while reducing cost and improving performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05176 , 2023. · arXiv
  7. Chen, Y., Wang, L., and Zhang, H. Multi-agent collaboration mechanisms: A survey of llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.06322 , 2025. · arXiv
  8. Eby, L. T. and Dobbins, G. H. Collectivistic orientation in teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 18(3):275-295, 1997.
  9. Erol, B., Lewis, D., et al. Beyond accuracy: Evaluating llms with cost-of-pass benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13359 , 2025. · arXiv
  10. Gemma Team. Gemma 3 technical report. Technical report, Google DeepMind, 2025. arXiv:2503.19786. · arXiv
  11. Han, S., Park, J., et al. Open-source small language models for personal medical assistant chatbots. ScienceDirect , 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.slm. 2024.000644 . · DOI
  12. Hassan, S. A., El-Sayed, W. M., and Ahmed, F. Z. From awareness to action: investigating the impact of big-five teamwork model awareness on rationing of nursing care and patient-centered care. BMC Nursing , 24(1):1-15, 2025.
  13. He, X., Zhang, Y., Mou, L., Xing, E., and Xie, P. Pathvqa: 30000+ questions for medical visual question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.10286 , 2020. · arXiv
  14. Hong, S., Zhuge, M., Chen, J., Zheng, X., Cheng, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, C., Wang, Z., Yau, S. K. S., Lin, Z., Zhou, L., Ran, C., Xiao, L., Wu, C., and Schmidhuber, J. Metagpt: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024.
  15. Jin, D., Pan, E., Oufattole, N., Weng, W.-H., Fang, H., and Szolovits, P. What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.13081 , 2020. · arXiv
  16. Jin, Q., Dhingra, B., Liu, Z., Cohen, W., and Lu, X. Pubmedqa: A dataset for biomedical research question answering. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) , pp. 2567-2577. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019.
  17. Kim, Y., Park, C., Jeong, H., Chan, Y. S., Xu, X., McDuff, D., Lee, H., Ghassemi, M., Breazeal, C., and Park, H. W. Mdagents: An adaptive collaboration of llms for medical decision-making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15155 , 2024. · arXiv
  18. Li, G., Hammoud, H. A. A. K., Itani, H., Khizbullin, D., and Ghanem, B. Camel: Communicative agents for 'mind' exploration of large language model society. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17760 , 2023. · arXiv
  19. Liu, P. R., Bansal, S., Dinh, J., Pawar, A., Satishkumar, R., Desai, S., Gupta, N., Wang, X., and Hu, S. Medchat: A multi-agent framework for multimodal diagnosis with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07400 , 2025. · arXiv
  20. Liu, S., Chen, Y., et al. Dylan: Dynamic llm-agent network for biomedical reasoning. In Conference on Language Modeling (COLM) , 2024a. arXiv:2310.02170. · arXiv
  21. Liu, Z. et al. Small language models survey: Measurements and insights. ResearchGate , 2024b. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/384295444 .
  22. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., and Zaccaro, S. J. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review , 26(3):356-376, 2001.
  23. Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning , volume 174, pp. 248-260. PMLR, 2022.
  24. Salas, E., Sims, D. E., and Burke, C. S. Is there a 'big five' in teamwork? Small Group Research , 36(5):555-599, 2005.
  25. Shridhar, K., Stolfo, A., and Sachan, M. Distilling stepby-step! outperforming larger language models with less training data and smaller model sizes. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) , pp. 8852-8870, 2023.
  26. Snell, C., Lee, J., Xu, K., and Kumar, A. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2025. arXiv:2408.03314. · arXiv
  27. Stout, R. J., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., and Milanovich, D. M. Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Human Factors , 41(1):61-71, 1999.
  28. Tang, X., Zou, A., Zhang, Z., Li, Z., Zhao, Y., Zhang, X., Cohan, A., and Gerstein, M. Medagents: Large language models as collaborators for zero-shot medical reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pp. 599-621, 2024.
  29. Tchango, A. F., Goel, R., Wen, Z., Martel, J., and Ghosn, J. Ddxplus: A new dataset for automatic medical diagnosis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35: 23304-23318, 2022.
  30. Verhage, A., Herrington, V., and Koedijk, R. Police dyads within an operational simulation: an empirical test of the research propositions made in the 'big five' teamwork approach. Criminal Justice Policy Review , 33(8):892919, 2022.
  31. Wang, Y., Ma, X., Zhang, G., Ni, Y., Chandra, A., Guo, S., Ren, W., Arulraj, A., He, X., Jiang, Z., et al. Mmlu-pro: Amore robust and challenging multi-task language understanding benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01574 , 2024. · arXiv
  32. Wang, Z., Zhu, Y., Zhao, H., Zheng, X., Sui, D., Wang, T., Tang, W., Wang, Y., Harrison, E., Pan, C., Gao, J., and Ma, L. Colacare: Enhancing electronic health record modeling through large language model-driven multiagent collaboration. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2025 , WWW'25, 2025.
  33. Webber, S. S. Trust, satisfaction, and equity in small groups: what's important to members? Small Group Research , 33 (1):85-106, 2002.
  34. Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q., and Zhou, D. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , volume 35, pp. 24824-24837, 2022.
  35. Wu, Y., Peng, Z., and Klein, D. Inference scaling laws: An empirical analysis of compute-optimal inference for problem-solving with language models. In NeurIPS 2024 Workshop on Adaptive Foundation Models , 2024a. arXiv:2408.00724. · arXiv
  36. Wu, Z., Liu, X., et al. Small language models learn enhanced reasoning skills from medical textbooks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00376 , 2024b. · arXiv
  37. Xia, P., Wang, J., Peng, Y., Zeng, K., Wu, X., Tang, X., Zhu, H., Li, Y., Liu, S., Lu, Y ., and Yao, H. Mmedagentrl: Optimizing multi-agent collaboration for multimodal medical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00555 , 2025. · arXiv
  38. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., and Marks, M. A. Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly , 12(4):451-483, 2001.
  39. Zhang, W., Chen, L., and Wang, M. Small language models can still pack a punch. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05465 , 2025. · arXiv
  40. Zhang, X., Wu, C., Zhao, Z., Lin, W., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., and Xie, W. Pmc-vqa: Visual instruction tuning for medical visual question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10415 , 2023. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mishra, P. P., Arvan, M., & Zalake, M.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2508.08115
arXiv
2508.08115
OpenAlex
W4416243418
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
multi-agent systems, medical reasoning, Pareto optimality, small language models, shared mental models, team leadership, team orientation, trust networks, mutual monitoring, token efficiency, resource-constrained clinical settings

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