Back

Toward the Autonomous AI Doctor: Quantitative Benchmarking of an Autonomous Agentic AI Versus Board-Certified Clinicians in a Real World Setting

Hayat, H.; Kudrautsau, M.; Makarov, E.; Melnichenko, V.; Tsykunou, T.; Varaksin, P.; Pavelle, M.; Oskowitz, A. Z.

2025-07-16 health informatics
10.1101/2025.07.14.25331406 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundGlobally we face a projected shortage of 11 million healthcare practitioners by 2030, and administrative burden consumes 50% of clinical time. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to help alleviate these problems. However, no end-to-end autonomous large language model (LLM)-based AI system has been rigorously evaluated in real-world clinical practice. In this study, we evaluated whether a multi-agent LLM-based AI framework can function autonomously as an AI doctor in a virtual urgent care setting. MethodsWe retrospectively compared the performance of the multi-agent AI system Doctronic and board-certified clinicians across 500 consecutive urgent-care telehealth encounters. The primary end points: diagnostic concordance, treatment plan consistency, and safety metrics, were assessed by blinded LLM-based adjudication and expert human review. ResultsThe top diagnosis of Doctronic and clinician matched in 81% of cases, and the treatment plan aligned in 99.2% of cases. No clinical hallucinations occurred (e.g., diagnosis or treatment not supported by clinical findings). In an expert review of discordant cases, AI performance was superior in 36.1%, and human performance was superior in 9.3%; the diagnoses were equivalent in the remaining cases. ConclusionsIn this first large-scale validation of an autonomous AI doctor, we demonstrated strong diagnostic and treatment plan concordance with human clinicians. These findings indicate that multi-agent AI systems can achieve comparable clinical decision-making to human providers and offer a potential solution to healthcare workforce shortages. O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=117 SRC="FIGDIR/small/25331406v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (29K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@c00e55org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@ecfe38org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1263910org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@6c6ce7_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.