ArticleNature medicine2026
Clinical decision support in hematological malignancies using a case-grounded AI agent.
Article in Nature medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Bits to Bedside: From Data to Knowledge in Vascular Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in oncology: linking biological discovery to clinical utility.Molecular cancer · 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
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multidisciplinary tumor boards integrate longitudinal treatment histories, molecular profiling and rapidly evolving evidence to guide decisions in hematological malignancies, yet access to this level of subspecialty deliberation is increasingly uneven. Here we develop HemaGuide, a locally deployable, modular large language model agent that converts unstructured clinical documents into structured case representations, autonomously routes cases to specialized decision modes ('guideline', 'advanced' and 'molecular') and grounds recommendations in disease-specific guideline flowcharts and a clinical decision memory of >2,000 real-world tumor board cases. In expert-blinded benchmarking on 45 high-complexity cases across six foundation models, HemaGuide substantially improved concordance with tumor board decisions. A systematic ablation study across 11 layers confirmed that performance gains were routing-type-dependent, with no single component sufficient across case types. Automated classification of 70 clinically relevant missense variants showed high concordance with expert standards; no oncogenic variant was downgraded to benign and the whole workflow was completed under real-time conditions on commodity hardware with a median latency of 39 s rather than the hours typically required for manual molecular board workflows. In a simulated practice study, agent-assisted resident physicians achieved near-senior concordance and partially outperformed senior physicians in their subspecialty. External validation on 555 independent cases from a second academic center yielded 81.8% concordance across 47 entities, and a prospective 1-month silent trial on 64 consecutive, unselected cases achieved 82.8% concordance. Hallucinations occurred in 2 of 664 evaluated cases (0.3%). Together these data provide evidence that locally deployable, case-grounded large language model agents can deliver auditable clinical decision support across hematological malignancies, with concordance maintained across institutions and under real-time conditions on commodity hardware.
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.