Paper detail

Detecting Clinical Discrepancies in Health Coaching Agents: A Dual-Stream Memory and Reconciliation Architecture

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents transition from single-session tools to persistent systems managing longitudinal healthcare journeys, their memory architectures face a critical challenge: reconciling two imperfect sources of truth. The patient's evolving self-report is current but prone to recall bias, while the Electronic Health Record (EHR) is medically validated but frequently stale. General-purpose agent memory systems optimize for coherence by overwriting older facts with the user's latest statement, a pattern that risks safety failures when applied to clinical data. We introduce a Dual-Stream Memory Architecture that strictly separates the patient narrative from the structured clinical record (FHIR), governed by a dedicated Reconciliation Engine that evaluates every extracted memory against the patient's FHIR profile and classifies discrepancies by type, severity, and the specific FHIR resources involved. We evaluate this architecture on 26 patients across 675 longitudinal wellness coaching sessions, using a hybrid dataset that interleaves real provider-patient transcripts with synthetic, FHIR-grounded clinical scenarios. In isolated testing, the engine detects 84.4% of designed clinical discrepancies with 86.7% safety-critical recall. By coupling extraction and reconciliation evaluation on the same data, we directly quantify a 13.6% error cascade, tracing the degradation to clinical details lost during memory extraction from unstructured conversation rather than to downstream classification errors. These findings establish that validating patient-reported memories against clinical records is both feasible and necessary for safe deployment of longitudinal health agents.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.