ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2024
CDR-Agent: Intelligent Selection and Execution of Clinical Decision Rules Using Large Language Model Agents.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A comprehensive survey of AI agents in healthcare.Journal of biomedical informatics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical decision-making is inherently complex and fast-paced, particularly in emergency departments (EDs) where rapid and high-stakes decisions are made. Clinical Decision Rules (CDRs) are standardized evidence-based tools that combine signs, symptoms, and clinical variables into decision trees to make consistent and accurate diagnoses. CDR usage is often hindered by the clinician's cognitive load, limiting their ability to quickly recall and apply the appropriate rules. We introduce CDR-Agent, a novel LLM-based system designed to enhance ED decision-making by autonomously identifying and applying the most appropriate CDRs based on unstructured clinical notes. To validate CDR-Agent, we curated two novel ED datasets: synthetic and CDR-Bench, although CDR-Agent is applicable to non ED clinics. CDR-Agent achieves a 56.3% (synthetic) and 8.7% (CDR-Bench) accuracy gain relative to the standalone LLM baseline in CDR selection, with overall prediction accuracy improvements of 134.0% (synthetic) and 20.4% (CDR-Bench). Moreover, CDR-Agent significantly reduces computational overhead.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41726525PMC12919626What 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.