Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study evaluates the Nimblemind Multi-Agent System (nMAS) for extracting evidence of Helicobacter pylori infection from gastric biopsy reports, addressing the challenges of heterogeneous data formats and manual review scalability. The nMAS achieved an impressive 98.61% accuracy in classifying key clinical fields related to H. pylori, demonstrating its effectiveness in integrating evidence extraction with report-level traceability. By streamlining the review process, nMAS could significantly reduce the time and costs associated with manual report assessments, highlighting its practical implications for clinical workflows.
nMAS can cut gastric biopsy report review time from over 83 hours to just 1.4 hours, unlocking substantial efficiency gains in clinical settings.
Data from Singapore indicated that about 31% of the population had evidence of Helicobacter pylori infection. Persistent H. pylori infection is associated with chronic active gastritis and peptic ulcer disease, and its eradication is key to gastric cancer prevention. However, evidence supporting \textit{H. pylori} positivity and H. pylori-associated gastritis may be distributed across heterogeneous coded and free-text report fields and may require contextual interpretation of assertion and negation, limiting keyword search, and making manual review difficult to scale. We conducted a retrospective pilot evaluation of the Nimblemind Multi-Agent System (nMAS), a field-name-driven, evidence-linked extraction workflow, using 54 de-identified gastric biopsy pathology reports from a large healthcare system in Singapore. Four clinician-scoped binary fields were evaluated: gastric/stomach biopsy, biopsy status, H. pylori positivity, and H. pylori-associated gastritis. Across 216 feature-case decisions, nMAS correctly classified 213, corresponding to 98.61% overall accuracy. A separately implemented UMA-style MiniMax M2.5 comparator produced similar aggregate and per-field classification metrics. Although predictive performance was similar, nMAS maintained unified report-level outputs with supporting source sentences; the demonstrated contribution is therefore workflow integration and traceability rather than predictive superiority. Under an illustrative, unmeasured scenario, reviewing 1,000 reports at five minutes per manual review versus five seconds per evidence-linked verification would reduce review time from 83.3 to 1.4 staff-hours, corresponding to 81.9 staff-hours and about USD~6,100 in potential staff-time value. Larger multi-institutional studies should evaluate evidence-span correctness, clinician verification time, and generalizability.
NUS