ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
MES: A Multi-Agent Evidence Synthesis System for Medical Decision-Making.
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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medical evidence synthesis increasingly requires published studies, real-world clinical data and structured biomedical knowledge, yet most automated systems remain centered on literature retrieval and summarization. Here we present MES, a multi-agent framework for source-grounded medical evidence synthesis. MES coordinates six specialized agents to decompose clinical questions, retrieve literature and trial evidence, generate question-specific RWE by constructing and analyzing real-world cohorts, query biomedical knowledge graphs, integrate quantitative findings and screen generated claims against their cited evidence. The framework uses evidence-based medicine taxonomies to clarify underspecified questions, adapts evidence use when sources are absent or discordant and reports unresolved gaps rather than forcing consensus. MES also provides claim-level provenance tracking and cross-agent consistency checking, allowing final reports to distinguish trial evidence, real-world associations and knowledge-graph support. We evaluated MES in two clinical use cases and across 144 clinical queries spanning six evidence-based medicine categories. MES generated structured reports that preserved source traceability, identified cross-source disagreement and communicated uncertainty across diverse clinical question types. MES provides an auditable framework for organizing, testing and contextualizing heterogeneous clinical evidence while keeping the evidentiary basis of each conclusion explicit.
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.