ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
EvoMDT: a self-evolving multi-agent system for structured clinical decision-making in multi-cancer.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI agents in cancer imaging: Concepts, advances, and clinical perspectives.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2026Article
- HealthFlow: automating electronic health record analysis via a strategically self-evolving multi-agent framework.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Role prompting modulates linguistic style but not clinical decision structure in GPT-5 tumour board simulation.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating LLMs in non-metastatic melanoma care: a comparative analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Precision oncology: from large language models to multi-agent systems.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTs) are central to cancer care but remain constrained by scarce experts and variable decision quality. EvoMDT employs a self-evolution loop that updates prompts, consensus weights, and retrieval scope based on expert feedback and outcome signals, improving robustness without sacrificing traceability. This matters clinically because MDT workloads and evidence shift over time, requiring adaptive yet auditable decision support. Agents perform domain-specific inference over lesion-level clinical data with structured knowledge retrieval; a consensus protocol resolves conflicts and generates traceable, evidence-linked recommendations. Evaluation spanned six public oncology QA benchmarks and four real-world datasets (breast, liver, lung, lymphoma), followed by single-blind physician assessment. Quantitative metrics (ROUGE, BERTScore) and automated safety checks assessed factuality and guideline concordance, while clinicians rated clinical appropriateness and usability. EvoMDT outperformed frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) baselines (e.g., Llama-3-70B, Claude-3, Med-PaLM 2), improving guideline concordance and semantic alignment with expert plans (BERTScore 0.62-0.68) and reducing safety violations. In physician review, EvoMDT achieved decision quality comparable to human MDTs while shortening response time by 30-40%. These results position EvoMDT as an interpretable, evidence-traceable framework that operationalizes AI reasoning for multidisciplinary oncology practice and offers a scalable foundation for trustworthy, lesion-level precision cancer care.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.