Back

Human-Guided Agentic AI for End-to-End EHR Research: Sequential Antibody-Drug Conjugate Pathways in Breast Cancer

Loaiza-Bonilla, A.; Colovos, C.; Kim, D.; Grichnik, J. M.; Singh, K.; Tarantino, P.

2026-10-14 oncology
10.64898/2026.10.13.26365479 medRxiv
Show abstract

PURPOSE: To demonstrate an end-to-end research workflow combining a large electronic health record (EHR) resource and a multi-agent artificial intelligence (AI) system governed by Human-Guided Orchestration (HGO), using sequential sacituzumab govitecan (SG) and trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) orders in breast cancer as the clinical use case. METHODS: A June 2026 EHR release contained 4.95 million patients, including 156,051 with breast cancer codes. Muse Spark supported cohort construction, executable statistical analysis, data-quality checks, literature retrieval, and reporting executed through Symbiotic Agent Teaming (SAT) under investigator direction. The main clinical measure was the second-drug record span, from first to last order. Analyses were descriptive and unadjusted; orders did not confirm administration or progression. RESULTS: The workflow identified 106 patients: 73 had T-DXd ordered first and 33 had SG ordered first. Median second-drug spans were 63 days (interquartile range [IQR], 29-116) for SG after T-DXd and 49 days (IQR, 21-126) for T-DXd after SG; the median difference was -14 days (95% bootstrap CI, -41 to 21; distributional P = 0.42). Reported outputs additionally included cohort definitions, aggregate analyses, evidence context, figures, and a preliminary draft manuscript. CONCLUSION: This study provides a concrete model for integrating large EHR resources, agentic AI, and human expertise across the research cycle. The ADC use case illustrates how computational execution and Expert-in-the-Loop (EITL) adjudication can produce interpretable research outputs and refine their scientific meaning, providing a foundation for extending and evaluating this approach across clinical questions.

Matching journals

The top 7 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.