A Multi-Agent Framework for Medical AI: Leveraging Fine-Tuned GPT, LLaMA, and DeepSeek R1 for Evidence-Based and Bias-Aware Clinical Query Processing

Large language models (LLMs) show promise for healthcare question answering, but clinical use is limited by weak verification, insufficient evidence grounding, and unreliable confidence signalling. We propose a multi-agent medical QA framework that combines complementary LLMs with evidence retrieval, uncertainty estimation, and bias checks to improve answer reliability. Our approach has two phases. First, we fine-tune three representative LLM families (GPT, LLaMA, and DeepSeek R1) on MedQuAD-derived medical QA data (20k+ question-answer pairs across multiple NIH domains) and benchmark generation quality. DeepSeek R1 achieves the strongest scores (ROUGE-1 0.536 +- 0.04; ROUGE-2 0.226 +-0.03; BLEU 0.098 -+ 0.018) and substantially outperforms the specialised biomedical baseline BioGPT in zero-shot evaluation. Second, we implement a modular multi-agent pipeline in which a Clinical Reasoning agent (fine-tuned LLaMA) produces structured explanations, an Evidence Retrieval agent queries PubMed to ground responses in recent literature, and a Refinement agent (DeepSeek R1) improves clarity and factual consistency; an optional human validation path is triggered for high-risk or high-uncertainty cases. Safety mechanisms include Monte Carlo dropout and perplexity-based uncertainty scoring, plus lexical and sentiment-based bias detection supported by LIME/SHAP-based analyses. In evaluation, the full system achieves 87% accuracy with relevance around 0.80, and evidence augmentation reduces uncertainty (perplexity 4.13) compared to base responses, with mean end-to-end latency of 36.5 seconds under the reported configuration. Overall, the results indicate that agent specialisation and verification layers can mitigate key single-model limitations and provide a practical, extensible design for evidence-based and bias-aware medical AI.

Benchmarking Classical, Deep, and Generative Models for Human Activity Recognition

Human Activity Recognition (HAR) has gained significant importance with the growing use of sensor-equipped devices and large datasets. This paper evaluates the performance of three categories of models : classical machine learning, deep learning architectures, and Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs) using five key benchmark datasets of HAR (UCI-HAR, OPPORTUNITY, PAMAP2, WISDM, and Berkeley MHAD). We assess various models, including Decision Trees, Random Forests, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), and Deep Belief Networks (DBNs), using metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score for a comprehensive comparison. The results show that CNN models offer superior performance across all datasets, especially on the Berkeley MHAD. Classical models like Random Forest do well on smaller datasets but face challenges with larger, more complex data. RBM-based models also show notable potential, particularly for feature learning. This paper offers a detailed comparison to help researchers choose the most suitable model for HAR tasks.