Frontiers in digital health · 2026
CDTD-Agent: a retrieval-augmented multi-agent digital health framework for integrated diabetes care: a single-case expert-rated pilot study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Jieyi, Wu Luqing, Wu Jielong, Han Xiaoming, Lin Lijin, Zhao Nengjiang, Zhang Zhihai, Cai Miaona, Chen Meiqi, Yang Shuyu, Li Bo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Diabetes management increasingly requires coordination across Western medicine, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and lifestyle-based health management. General-purpose large language models (LLMs) can generate clinical text but may lack reliable source grounding and structured cross-disciplinary reasoning.
METHODS: We developed CDTD-Agent, a retrieval-augmented multi-agent framework that combines a domain-specific knowledge base with an Extract-Retrieve-Reason workflow. The knowledge base included 12 medical textbooks, 8 clinical guidelines, and 183 expert-reviewed diabetes cases. In a blinded single-case pilot evaluation, 30 senior experts rated anonymized recommendations from CDTD-Agent, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp, Doubao, and two attending physicians across eight dimensions. Linear mixed-effects models accounted for repeated ratings within evaluators, with Holm correction across eight omnibus tests and global Benjamini-Hochberg correction across 40 focused CDTD-Agent-versus-comparator contrasts. A post hoc backbone-only ablation compared the full framework with Qwen3-235B-A22B using the same case and external prompt without retrieval or role-structured multi-agent processing.
RESULTS: Significant source effects were detected in all eight dimensions after Holm correction (all adjusted p < 0.001). After global false discovery rate correction, CDTD-Agent received significantly higher ratings than all three general-purpose LLMs in five dimensions: safety, examination appropriateness, Western medicine treatment appropriateness, TCM treatment appropriateness, and evidence adherence. The largest differences occurred in Western medicine treatment appropriateness, where CDTD-Agent scored 4.07 ± 0.94 versus 1.37-1.60 for the general-purpose LLMs (all adjusted p < 0.001). Non-parametric sensitivity analyses agreed with the mixed-effects results for 39 of 40 focused contrasts. In the post hoc ablation, the full framework outperformed the backbone-only condition in seven of eight dimensions after Holm correction; health management was not significantly different (adjusted p = 0.080).
CONCLUSION: In this standardized complex T2DM case, CDTD-Agent received favorable expert ratings relative to the evaluated general-purpose LLMs in several clinically important dimensions. These findings are scenario-specific and do not establish generalizable clinical performance or isolate the effects of individual framework components. Multicase, repeated-generation, factorial-ablation, external, and prospective validation is needed before clinical deployment.
METHODS: We developed CDTD-Agent, a retrieval-augmented multi-agent framework that combines a domain-specific knowledge base with an Extract-Retrieve-Reason workflow. The knowledge base included 12 medical textbooks, 8 clinical guidelines, and 183 expert-reviewed diabetes cases. In a blinded single-case pilot evaluation, 30 senior experts rated anonymized recommendations from CDTD-Agent, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp, Doubao, and two attending physicians across eight dimensions. Linear mixed-effects models accounted for repeated ratings within evaluators, with Holm correction across eight omnibus tests and global Benjamini-Hochberg correction across 40 focused CDTD-Agent-versus-comparator contrasts. A post hoc backbone-only ablation compared the full framework with Qwen3-235B-A22B using the same case and external prompt without retrieval or role-structured multi-agent processing.
RESULTS: Significant source effects were detected in all eight dimensions after Holm correction (all adjusted p < 0.001). After global false discovery rate correction, CDTD-Agent received significantly higher ratings than all three general-purpose LLMs in five dimensions: safety, examination appropriateness, Western medicine treatment appropriateness, TCM treatment appropriateness, and evidence adherence. The largest differences occurred in Western medicine treatment appropriateness, where CDTD-Agent scored 4.07 ± 0.94 versus 1.37-1.60 for the general-purpose LLMs (all adjusted p < 0.001). Non-parametric sensitivity analyses agreed with the mixed-effects results for 39 of 40 focused contrasts. In the post hoc ablation, the full framework outperformed the backbone-only condition in seven of eight dimensions after Holm correction; health management was not significantly different (adjusted p = 0.080).
CONCLUSION: In this standardized complex T2DM case, CDTD-Agent received favorable expert ratings relative to the evaluated general-purpose LLMs in several clinically important dimensions. These findings are scenario-specific and do not establish generalizable clinical performance or isolate the effects of individual framework components. Multicase, repeated-generation, factorial-ablation, external, and prospective validation is needed before clinical deployment.