ReviewMethods and protocols2026
A Review of Multi-Agent AI Systems for Biological and Clinical Data Analysis.
Review in Methods and protocols, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This review evaluates the emerging paradigm of multi-agent systems (MASs) for biomedical and clinical data analysis, focusing on their ability to overcome the reasoning and reliability limitations of standalone large language models (LLMs). We synthesize findings from recent architectural frameworks, specifically LangGraph, CrewAI, and the Model Context Protocol (MCP), to examine how specialized agent teams divide labor, utilize precision tools, and cross-verify outputs. We find that MAS architectures yield significant performance gains in various domains: recent implementations improved oncology decision-making accuracy from 30.3% to 87.2% and reached a peak of 93.2% accuracy on USMLE-style benchmarks through simulated clinical evolution. In clinical trial matching, multi-agent frameworks achieved 87.3% accuracy and enhanced clinician screening efficiency by 42.6% (
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.