Autonomous RareLens and physicians assisted by RareLens both outperformed unaided physicians, while demonstrating that effective human-AI collaboration requires more than simply providing model outputs, and suggest a general strategy for building AI systems that operate reliably under high clinical uncertainty.
Abstract
Rare diseases represent one of the most challenging settings for clinical decision-making, where heterogeneous presentations, sparse evidence and limited expertise create persistent uncertainty throughout the care pathway. Although artificial intelligence could help, existing systems largely address isolated tasks, particularly diagnosis, and usually rely on downstream investigations rather than information available at initial presentation. Here we show that clinical AI performance under uncertainty can be improved not by scaling a single model, but by exploiting the diversity of multiple imperfect reasoning systems. Across heterogeneous large language models, we identify divergent reasoning trajectories with complementary error patterns and develop RareLens, which learns to reconcile these perspectives into actionable decisions across four stages of rare disease care: risk screening, diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis prediction. Built on RarelensBench, a real-world dataset of 157,525 cases spanning all 33 Orphanet categories and more than 7,000 conditions, RareLens outperformed every frontier model tested, including GPT-5, DeepSeek-R1, Claude-3.7-Sonnet and Gemini-2.5-Pro, across all stages. It achieved an area under the curve of 0.917 for screening and top-1 accuracies of 65.5% and 89.8% for diagnosis and treatment. In an external evaluation involving 1,287 cases and 23 physicians, autonomous RareLens and physicians assisted by RareLens both outperformed unaided physicians, while demonstrating that effective human-AI collaboration requires more than simply providing model outputs. These findings establish divergent model reasoning as an exploitable source of information and suggest a general strategy for building AI systems that operate reliably under high clinical uncertainty.
Uncommon and off-guideline cases are difficult for clinical decision support, because physicians must make a series of management decisions under diagnostic uncertainty and rarely see the full case at once. Most large language model (LLM) benchmarks for medicine score only the final diagnosis, yet much of clinical care...
Ofir Ben Shoham, O. Perets, Nir Grinberg et al.· 0 citations
aiDIVA is presented, an ensemble-AI combining statistical and machine learning models trained on genomic and phenotypic data to identify causal variants among tens of thousands per patient, and applies a random forest model to classify pathogenicity and generates evidence-based scores for dominant and recessive disease...
D. Boceck, L. Laugwitz, M. Sturm et al.· npj Genomic Medicine· 1 citation
SYNRARE is a graphical user interface based on the Synthea framework that enables easier modification and generation of synthetic Electronic Health Records of RD patients, which differ only to a definable degree from patients with common diseases, thereby enabling the benchmarking and testing of algorithms under contro...
Nicolai Dinh Khang Truong, Richard Rottger· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Large language models are used as synthetic clinical experts to supervise a variational-autoencoder-based approach that learns low-dimensional latent summaries of visit-level observations to make clinical knowledge available to representation learning and improve clinical faithfulness for longitudinal rare-disease data...
Clemens Schächter, A. Pechmann, Janbernd Kirschner et al.· 0 citations
A machine learning algorithm called RankVar is developed to prioritize causative variants for rare diseases, based on clinical notes and genome/exome sequencing profiles, and may provide a useful framework for prioritizing variants in monogenic or oligogenic diseases.
Yuan Zhang, Mian Umair Ahsan, Peng Wang et al.· Genome Medicine· 1 citation
Large language models achieve high scores on medical knowledge assessments, yet clinical reasoning requires actively deciding what to investigate under uncertainty. We developed an agentic evaluation framework in hematologic oncology in which models must proactively request clinical data across three sequential rounds...
K. Braitsch, L. Schmalbrock, Theresa Weltermann et al.· arXiv.org· 1 citation
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.