The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has stimulated interest in multi-agent collaboration for addressing complex medical tasks. However, the practical advantages of multi-agent collaboration approaches remain insufficiently understood. Existing evaluations often lack generalizability, failing to cover diverse tasks reflective of real-world clinical practice, and frequently omit rigorous comparisons against both single-LLM-based and established conventional methods. To address this critical gap, we introduce MedAgentBoard, a comprehensive benchmark for the systematic evaluation of multi-agent collaboration, single-LLM, and conventional approaches. MedAgentBoard encompasses four diverse medical task categories: (1) medical (visual) question answering, (2) lay summary generation, (3) structured Electronic Health Record (EHR) predictive modeling, and (4) clinical workflow automation, across text, medical images, and structured EHR data. Our extensive experiments reveal a nuanced landscape: while multi-agent collaboration demonstrates benefits in specific scenarios, such as enhancing task completeness in clinical workflow automation, it does not consistently outperform advanced single LLMs (e.g., in textual medical QA) or, critically, specialized conventional methods that generally maintain better performance in tasks like medical VQA and EHR-based prediction. MedAgentBoard offers a vital resource and actionable insights, emphasizing the necessity of a task-specific, evidence-based approach to selecting and developing AI solutions in medicine. It underscores that the inherent complexity and overhead of multi-agent collaboration must be carefully weighed against tangible performance gains. All code, datasets, detailed prompts, and experimental results are open-sourced at https://medagentboard.netlify.app/.

The inherent nature of patient data poses several challenges. Prevalent cases amass substantial longitudinal data owing to their patient volume and consistent follow-ups, however, longitudinal laboratory data are renowned for their irregularity, temporality, absenteeism, and sparsity; In contrast, recruitment for rare or specific cases is often constrained due to their limited patient size and episodic observations. This study employed self-supervised learning (SSL) to pretrain a generalized laboratory progress (GLP) model that captures the overall progression of six common laboratory markers in prevalent cardiovascular cases, with the intention of transferring this knowledge to aid in the detection of specific cardiovascular event. GLP implemented a two-stage training approach, leveraging the information embedded within interpolated data and amplify the performance of SSL. After GLP pretraining, it is transferred for TVR detection. The proposed two-stage training improved the performance of pure SSL, and the transferability of GLP exhibited distinctiveness. After GLP processing, the classification exhibited a notable enhancement, with averaged accuracy rising from 0.63 to 0.90. All evaluated metrics demonstrated substantial superiority (p < 0.01) compared to prior GLP processing. Our study effectively engages in translational engineering by transferring patient progression of cardiovascular laboratory parameters from one patient group to another, transcending the limitations of data availability. The transferability of disease progression optimized the strategies of examinations and treatments, and improves patient prognosis while using commonly available laboratory parameters. The potential for expanding this approach to encompass other diseases holds great promise.

This paper describes recent work on an ongoing project in medical diagnosis at the University of Guelph. A domain on which experts are not very good at pinpointing a single disease outcome is explored. On-line medical data is available over a relatively short period of time. Belief Functions (Dempster-Shafer theory) are first extracted from data and then modified with expert opinions. Several methods for doing this are compared and results show that one formulation statistically outperforms the others, including a method suggested by Shafer. Expert opinions and statistically derived information about dependencies among symptoms are also compared. The benefits of using uncertainty management techniques as methods for knowledge acquisition from data are discussed.