# Beyond the Individual: Virtualizing Multi-Disciplinary Reasoning for Clinical Intake via Collaborative Agents

Source: [Beyond the Individual: Virtualizing Multi-Disciplinary Reasoning for Clinical Intake via Collaborative Agents](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/69dc785a7d0172140ec788be>)

Collection index: [llms.txt](<https://www.sota2.com/research/llms.txt>)

Data updated: 2026-04-25T05:00:04.395Z

Authors: Huangwei Chen, Wu Li, Junhao Jia, Yining Chen, Xiaotao Pang, YaLong Chen, Gonghui Li, Haishuai Wang, Jiajun Bu, Lei Wu

Published: 2026-04-10T03:43:33.000Z

## Abstract

The initial outpatient consultation is critical for clinical decision-making, yet it is often conducted by a single physician under time pressure, making it prone to cognitive biases and incomplete evidence capture. Although the Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) reduces these risks, they are costly and difficult to scale to real-time intake. We propose Aegle, a synchronous virtual MDT framework that brings MDT-level reasoning to outpatient consultations via a graph-based multi-agent architecture. Aegle formalizes the consultation state using a structured SOAP representation, separating evidence collection from diagnostic reasoning to improve traceability and bias control. An orchestrator dynamically activates specialist agents, which perform decoupled parallel reasoning and are subsequently integrated by an aggregator into a coherent clinical note. Experiments on ClinicalBench and a real-world RAPID-IPN dataset across 24 departments and 53 metrics show that Aegle consistently outperforms state-of-the-art proprietary and open-source models in documentation quality and consultation capability, while also improving final diagnosis accuracy. Our code is available at https://github.com/HovChen/Aegle.

## Recorded benchmark results

A research result applies to its stated dataset, split, metric and evaluation configuration. Compare like-for-like settings, preserve the metric's unit and direction, and distinguish paper-reported results from independent reproduction. The best result recorded here is not a claim of exhaustive, current global coverage.

- [Documentation quality evaluation on ClinicalBench 1.0 (test)](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/documentation-quality-evaluation-on-clinicalbench-1-0-test.md>): Documentation quality evaluation; ClinicalBench 1.0 (test); IDEA Score: 72.78.

- [Documentation quality evaluation on RAPID-IPN 1.0 (test)](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/documentation-quality-evaluation-on-rapid-ipn-1-0-test.md>): Documentation quality evaluation; RAPID-IPN 1.0 (test); IDEA: 71.52.

- [Consultation Capability Evaluation on RAPID-IPN](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/consultation-capability-evaluation-on-rapid-ipn.md>): Consultation Capability Evaluation; RAPID-IPN; Conversation Arrangement: 4.03.

- [Consultation Capability Evaluation on ClinicalBench](<https://www.sota2.com/research/sota/consultation-capability-evaluation-on-clinicalbench.md>): Consultation Capability Evaluation; ClinicalBench; Conversation Arrangement: 4.02.

## Original sources and implementation

[Original paper](<https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.08927>)

[PDF](<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2604.08927.pdf>)