Papers › GSCo: Towards Generalizable AI in Medicine via Generalist-Specialist Collaboration
GSCo: Towards Generalizable AI in Medicine via Generalist-Specialist Collaboration
Sunan He, Yuxiang Nie, Hongmei Wang, Shu Yang, Yihui Wang, Zhiyuan Cai, Zhixuan Chen, Yingxue Xu, Luyang Luo, Huiling Xiang, Xi Lin, Mingxiang Wu, Yifan Peng, George Shih, Ziyang Xu, Xian Wu, Qiong Wang, Ronald Cheong Kin Chan, Varut Vardhanabhuti, Winnie Chiu Wing Chu, Yefeng Zheng, Pranav Rajpurkar, Kang Zhang, Hao Chen
Generalist foundation models (GFMs) are renowned for their exceptional capability and flexibility in effectively generalizing across diverse tasks and modalities. In the field of medicine, while GFMs exhibit superior generalizability based on their extensive intrinsic knowledge as well as proficiency in instruction following and in-context learning, specialist models excel in precision due to their domain knowledge. In this work, for the first time, we explore the synergy between the GFM and specialist models, to enable precise medical image analysis on a broader scope. Specifically, we propose a cooperative framework, Generalist-Specialist Collaboration (GSCo), which consists of two stages, namely the construction of GFM and specialists, and collaborative inference on downstream tasks. In the construction stage, we develop MedDr, the largest open-source GFM tailored for medicine, showcasing exceptional instruction-following and in-context learning capabilities. Meanwhile, a series of lightweight specialists are crafted for downstream tasks with low computational cost. In the collaborative inference stage, we introduce two cooperative mechanisms, Mixture-of-Expert Diagnosis and Retrieval-Augmented Diagnosis, to harvest the generalist's in-context learning abilities alongside the specialists' domain expertise. For a comprehensive evaluation, we curate a large-scale benchmark featuring 28 datasets and about 250,000 images. Extensive results demonstrate that MedDr consistently outperforms state-of-the-art GFMs on downstream datasets. Furthermore, GSCo exceeds both GFMs and specialists across all out-of-domain disease diagnosis datasets. These findings indicate a significant paradigm shift in the application of GFMs, transitioning from separate models for specific tasks to a collaborative approach between GFMs and specialists, thereby advancing the frontiers of generalizable AI in medicine.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2404.15127")
Code
Syntology Ran 7 of 8 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 6 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 8 samples from 1 repository, 7 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
8 samples harvested; 7 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 8 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from sunanhe/meddr. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
3ddf5cec5e279143 · report
722750f3bafc8978 · report
f239b832e3dff6ea · report
592b3c1a88f93d7c · report
001474ccd1834ca7 · report
67b54ec649e579c0 · report
700e7b33548e7070 · report
bd0b36d66d5aba83 · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections