A Multi-Agent System for Autonomous, Fine-Tuning-Free Clinical Symptom Detection: Development and Validation Study

Clinical notes contain many of the signs and symptoms that bring patients to care, yet this information rarely reaches structured fields. Existing extraction approaches either rely on context-insensitive rules that generate false positives or on supervised models that require substantial fine-tuning. We present Pythia, a multi-agent system that autonomously writes and optimizes extraction prompts for clinical concepts without manual prompt engineering or fine-tuning. Running on a locally hosted open-weights model, Pythia keeps clinical notes on local infrastructure and selects prompts using development-set sensitivity and specificity. We compared Pythia with a curated lexicon across 72 signs and symptoms from 400 clinical notes representing 387 patients. Development (n=300) and validation (n=100) sets were partitioned independently for each concept. Pythia achieved mean sensitivity of 0.76 and specificity of 0.95, compared with 0.82 and 0.76 for the lexicon, and matched or exceeded the lexicon on both metrics for 20 of 62 directly comparable concepts. For 14 concepts where the lexicon labeled every note positive, Pythia recovered mean specificity of 0.97 by requiring a present-tense, patient-attributed finding rather than any textual mention of a term. Specificity transferred from development to validation with minimal degradation across prevalences, whereas sensitivity transfer weakened below 5% prevalence, reaching a mean gap of 0.25 below 2% prevalence. A BERT classifier fine-tuned per concept on the same development set achieved mean sensitivity of 0.23 and collapsed to zero sensitivity for concepts below roughly 5% prevalence. These findings suggest that autonomous, fine-tuning-free prompt optimization can produce symptom extraction prompts that generalize effectively from development to validation while remaining deployable on local infrastructure.

Optimization Instability in Autonomous Agentic Workflows for Clinical Symptom Detection

Autonomous agentic workflows that iteratively refine their own behavior hold considerable promise, yet their failure modes remain poorly characterized. We investigate optimization instability, a phenomenon in which continued autonomous improvement paradoxically degrades classifier performance, using Pythia, an open-source framework for automated prompt optimization. Evaluating three clinical symptoms with varying prevalence (shortness of breath at 23%, chest pain at 12%, and Long COVID brain fog at 3%), we observed that validation sensitivity oscillated between 1.0 and 0.0 across iterations, with severity inversely proportional to class prevalence. At 3% prevalence, the system achieved 95% accuracy while detecting zero positive cases, a failure mode obscured by standard evaluation metrics. We evaluated two interventions: a guiding agent that actively redirected optimization, amplifying overfitting rather than correcting it, and a selector agent that retrospectively identified the best-performing iteration successfully prevented catastrophic failure. With selector agent oversight, the system outperformed expert-curated lexicons on brain fog detection by 331% (F1) and chest pain by 7%, despite requiring only a single natural language term as input. These findings characterize a critical failure mode of autonomous AI systems and demonstrate that retrospective selection outperforms active intervention for stabilization in low-prevalence classification tasks.

An Agentic AI Workflow for Detecting Cognitive Concerns in Real-world Data

Early identification of cognitive concerns is critical but often hindered by subtle symptom presentation. This study developed and validated a fully automated, multi-agent AI workflow using LLaMA 3 8B to identify cognitive concerns in 3,338 clinical notes from Mass General Brigham. The agentic workflow, leveraging task-specific agents that dynamically collaborate to extract meaningful insights from clinical notes, was compared to an expert-driven benchmark. Both workflows achieved high classification performance, with F1-scores of 0.90 and 0.91, respectively. The agentic workflow demonstrated improved specificity (1.00) and achieved prompt refinement in fewer iterations. Although both workflows showed reduced performance on validation data, the agentic workflow maintained perfect specificity. These findings highlight the potential of fully automated multi-agent AI workflows to achieve expert-level accuracy with greater efficiency, offering a scalable and cost-effective solution for detecting cognitive concerns in clinical settings.