跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1954新增论文
+1659其中 AI 相关
+88已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-06 02:51 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 12:13各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-05 03:19 — 2026-11-06 03:19(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-06 02:51最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 12:13库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-05 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

15,949 已收录论文13,765 AI 相关3,571 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-06 02:49(北京时间)
版本更新 · v3arXiv:2511.09394

EyeAgent: An Agentic AI System for Multimodal Clinical Decision Support in Ophthalmology

Danli Shi, Xiaolan Chen, Bingjie Yan, Weiyi Zhang, Jiancheng Yang, Ruoyu Chen, Xinyuan Wu, Siyu Huang 等 26 位作者

Current medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems are often task-specific, poorly integrated, and difficult to interpret, limiting support for multimodal clinical workflows. We developed and evaluated EyeAgent for ophthalmic decision support. EyeAgent comprises three layers including 54 task-specific EyeTools, 32 clinical skills, and a modular large language model reasoning core with interchangeable backbones. A multi-level evaluation distinguished this scope from empirical system-level validation. Component-level evaluation assessed newly developed models on held-out splits of datasets totaling 871,862 samples. System-level evaluation included illustrative cases of workflow breadth, a 200-case expert-rating study of output quality, and an exploratory multicenter reader study comparing unassisted and EyeAgent-assisted performance among 27 ophthalmologists from 11 centers. Skill-level and backbone ablations further assessed orchestration and robustness. In illustrative cases, EyeAgent showed task-specific advantages over GPT-5.5 in lesion quantitation, cross-modality synthesis, and uncertainty-aware reporting. In the expert-rating study, EyeAgent achieved an F1 score of 0.84 for skill selection, with 82.7%-92.0% of outputs rated acceptable or better across six clinical dimensions. In the exploratory multicenter reader study, diagnostic accuracy increased from 72.8% unassisted to 91.9% assisted (difference, 19.1 percentage points (pp); 95% CI, 13.6-24.7; Holm-adjusted P<0.001). Report completeness increased from 55.8% to 75.6% (difference, 19.8 pp; 95% CI, 14.8-24.7; Holm-adjusted P<0.001). Across the evaluated settings, EyeAgent supported interpretable, evidence-guided reasoning and showed potential for human-AI collaboration. Broader real-world effectiveness and generalizability require prospective and cross-population validation.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.HC
arXiv ↗PDF ↗