Agentic clinical reasoning over longitudinal myeloma records: a retrospective evaluation against expert consensus

Multiple myeloma is managed through sequential lines of therapy over years to decades, with each decision depending on cumulative disease history distributed across dozens to hundreds of heterogeneous clinical documents. Whether LLM-based systems can synthesise this evidence at a level approaching expert agreement has not been established. A retrospective evaluation was conducted on longitudinal clinical records of 811 myeloma patients treated at a tertiary centre (2001-2026), covering 44,962 documents and 1,334,677 laboratory values, with external validation on MIMIC-IV. An agentic reasoning system was compared against single-pass retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), iterative RAG, and full-context input on 469 patient-question pairs from 48 templates at three complexity levels. Reference labels came from double annotation by four oncologists with senior haematologist adjudication. Iterative RAG and full-context input converged on a shared ceiling (75.4% vs 75.8%, p = 1.00). The agentic system reached 79.6% concordance (95% CI 76.4-82.8), exceeding both baselines (+3.8 and +4.2 pp; p = 0.006 and 0.007). Gains rose with question complexity, reaching +9.4 pp on criteria-based synthesis (p = 0.032), and with record length, reaching +13.5 pp in the top decile (n = 10). The system error rate (12.2%) was comparable to expert disagreement (13.6%), but severity was inverted: 57.8% of system errors were clinically significant versus 18.8% of expert disagreements. Agentic reasoning was the only approach to exceed the shared ceiling, with gains concentrated on the most complex questions and longest records. The greater clinical consequence of residual system errors indicates that prospective evaluation in routine care is required before these findings translate into patient benefit.

Deformable Image Registration of Dark-Field Chest Radiographs for Local Lung Signal Change Assessment

Dark-field radiography of the human chest has been demonstrated to have promising potential for the analysis of the lung microstructure and the diagnosis of respiratory diseases. However, previous studies of dark-field chest radiographs evaluated the lung signal only in the inspiratory breathing state. Our work aims to add a new perspective to these previous assessments by locally comparing dark-field lung information between different respiratory states. To this end, we discuss suitable image registration methods for dark-field chest radiographs to enable consistent spatial alignment of the lung in distinct breathing states. Utilizing full inspiration and expiration scans from a clinical chronic obstructive pulmonary disease study, we assess the performance of the proposed registration framework and outline applicable evaluation approaches. Our regional characterization of lung dark-field signal changes between the breathing states provides a proof-of-principle that dynamic radiography-based lung function assessment approaches may benefit from considering registered dark-field images in addition to standard plain chest radiographs.