ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Adaptive diagnostic reasoning framework for pathology with multimodal large language models.
Article in Communications medicine, 2026. 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.
- Agentic systems in computational pathology: architectures, evidence, and translational challenges.Journal of translational medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence enhances pathology screening efficiency, yet clinical adoption remains limited because most systems operate as opaque black boxes. We aim to resolve this opacity by establishing a framework that generates transparent, evidence-linked reasoning to support diagnostic auditing.
methodsWe present a framework that shifts off-the-shelf multimodal large language models from passive pattern recognition to active diagnostic reasoning. Using small labeled subsets from breast and prostate cancer datasets, we employ a two-phase self-learning process to derive diagnostic criteria without updating model weights. We integrate expert feedback from board-certified pathologists to ensure the generated descriptions align with established medical standards.
resultsHere we show that our framework produces audit-ready rationales while achieving over 90% accuracy in distinguishing normal tissue from invasive carcinoma. Beyond binary classification, the model effectively differentiates complex subtypes like ductal carcinoma in situ by autonomously identifying hallmark histological features, including nuclear irregularities and structural disruption. These computer-generated descriptions closely match expert assessments. Our approach delivers substantial performance gains over conventional baselines and adapts effectively across diverse tissue types and independent foundation models.
conclusionsBy uniting visual understanding with reasoning, our framework provides a promising approach for clinically trustworthy artificial intelligence. This framework helps bridge the gap between opaque classifiers and auditable systems, suggesting a viable path toward evidence-linked interpretation in medical workflows.
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.