Enhancing Diagnostic Accuracy through Multi-Agent Conversations: Using Large Language Models to Mitigate Cognitive Bias

TL;DR

This study demonstrates that a multi-agent framework powered by large language models can significantly improve diagnostic accuracy by mitigating cognitive biases in clinical decision-making.

Contribution

The paper introduces a novel multi-agent conversation framework using GPT-4 to simulate clinical team dynamics and reduce diagnostic errors caused by cognitive biases.

Findings

Initial diagnosis accuracy was 0%, improved to 71.3% for top differential diagnoses.

Final diagnosis accuracy increased to 80% after multi-agent discussion.

Framework effectively corrected misconceptions in complex diagnostic scenarios.

Abstract

Background: Cognitive biases in clinical decision-making significantly contribute to errors in diagnosis and suboptimal patient outcomes. Addressing these biases presents a formidable challenge in the medical field. Objective: This study explores the role of large language models (LLMs) in mitigating these biases through the utilization of a multi-agent framework. We simulate the clinical decision-making processes through multi-agent conversation and evaluate its efficacy in improving diagnostic accuracy. Methods: A total of 16 published and unpublished case reports where cognitive biases have resulted in misdiagnoses were identified from the literature. In the multi-agent framework, we leveraged GPT-4 to facilitate interactions among four simulated agents to replicate clinical team dynamics. Each agent has a distinct role: 1) To make the final diagnosis after considering the discussions, 2) The devil's advocate and correct confirmation and anchoring bias, 3) The tutor and facilitator of the discussion to reduce premature closure bias, and 4) To record and summarize the findings. A total of 80 simulations were evaluated for the accuracy of initial diagnosis, top differential diagnosis and final two differential diagnoses. Results: In a total of 80 responses evaluating both initial and final diagnoses, the initial diagnosis had an accuracy of 0% (0/80), but following multi-agent discussions, the accuracy for the top differential diagnosis increased to 71.3% (57/80), and for the final two differential diagnoses, to 80.0% (64/80). Conclusions: The framework demonstrated an ability to re-evaluate and correct misconceptions, even in scenarios with misleading initial investigations. The LLM-driven multi-agent conversation framework shows promise in enhancing diagnostic accuracy in diagnostically challenging medical scenarios.