A scoping review with systematic evidence mapping across five electronic sources, screened 1,649 exportable records, and provisionally included 557 unique studies that met predefined criteria for goal-directed task execution, tool use, interaction with external resources, feedback-based refinement, or multi-agent collaboration.
Abstract
Large language models and multimodal foundation models are enabling medical artificial intelligence (AI) systems to move beyond isolated prediction and undertake multistep clinical tasks that require planning, tool use, memory, iterative correction, and coordination among specialized agents. However, the scope of agentic AI in medicine remains unsettled, and current evaluation practices are not yet aligned with the requirements of clinical use. We conducted a scoping review with systematic evidence mapping across five electronic sources, screened 1,649 exportable records, and provisionally included 557 unique studies that met predefined criteria for goal-directed task execution, tool use, interaction with external resources, feedback-based refinement, or multi-agent collaboration. The included studies describe single agents that use external tools, workflows supported by retrieval and external knowledge, multimodal agents, and multi-agent systems applied to medical question answering, image interpretation, electronic health record analysis, drug safety, and clinical trial prediction. The evidence base remains dominated by public benchmarks, simulated settings, retrospective datasets, and small-scale expert evaluation. Process reliability, evidence traceability, uncertainty, safety, workflow impact, and external validity are evaluated less consistently. Clinical translation will depend on clearer definitions, reproducible evaluation, auditable oversight, interoperable system design, and prospective validation in real-world clinical workflows.
Multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) agents are emerging in healthcare as systems that integrate heterogeneous clinical data, foundation models (FMs), tools, and agentic workflows, but their applications and translational readiness remain unclear. We conducted a scoping review of 37 peer-reviewed studies publish...
Kai Yu, Shuang Zhou, Yu Hou et al.· npj Digital Medicine· 1 citation
This work reviews agentic systems in computational pathology using an operational taxonomy based on dynamic control flow, inference-time tool selection, and knowledge integration to emphasize validation scope, computational cost, workflow integration, hallucination and security risks, regulatory requirements, patient p...
Xin-Yu Lu, Qian-Kun Li, Yak Gao et al.· Journal of Translational Med...· 1 citation
Although promising, LLM-based systems are not yet reliable enough for autonomous medical diagnosis, and multiple recommendations for future research are contained to ensure a high level of safety, transparency, and clinical applicability for LLMs and other AI/ML-related technologies and devices.
M. U. K. Gunawardhna, Pirunthavi Wijikumar, D. Weerasinghe· Sri Lankan Journal of Applie...· 1 citation
This Viewpoint argues that agentic architectures incorporating planning, action, reflection, and memory (PARM) represent a meaningful evolution beyond traditional rule-based, machine learning, and multimodal clinical decision support systems.
Raşit Dinç, N. Ardic· JMIR Medical Informatics· 1 citation
This survey provides a structured synthesis of how recent work connects foundation models to governable biomedical agentic systems and distills the recurring challenges and directions identified in the literature for reliable, accountable deployment.
Ali Abdollahi, Mohammad Amin Rezaei, Xi Wang et al.· IEEE Reviews in Biomedical E...· 1 citation
A detailed review of the current state of agentic AI is provided, starting with the evolution of AI and the concept of a medical agent, providing a structured foundation for understanding the design, deployment, governance, and limitations of agentic AI systems in modern healthcare ecosystems.