ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Comparative Performance of agentic AI and Physicians in Taking Clinical History across Leading Large Language Models (LLMs).
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Comprehensive clinical history taking is essential for high-quality care. We hypothesized that large language models (LLMs), guided by a structured agentic framework, can efficiently obtain clinically meaningful patient histories. We developed an iterative prompting system that evaluates relevance and completeness across standard history domains and generates targeted follow-up questions until sufficient detail is obtained. We built a patient-facing application and evaluated it using 52 published case reports and 20 constructed clinical scenarios with simulated patient interactions. The framework was implemented using GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Flash-Lite, or Grok-3. After each interaction, the system generated an EHR-ready clinical summary, differential diagnosis, and recommended investigations. Across models, relevant history elements were captured with >85% accuracy and F1 scores, as independently assessed by three blinded physicians, and recommended investigations aligned with those used to establish final diagnoses. These findings support the potential of agentic LLM systems for structured clinical history collection and justify prospective clinical evaluation.
Indexed as
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.