NSIDDx: A Design Framework for Neuro-Symbolic, Practitioner-First
Differential Diagnosis in Low-Resource Settings

We argue that for low-resource clinical settings, the most critical design constraint for diagnostic AI is not accuracy alone, but tractability of disagreement: a system whose reasoning is transparent, auditable, and modifiable by the clinician may in practice be more useful than a more accurate system whose failures are invisible — because it invites collaboration rather than anchoring.

This paper presents NSIDDx, a neuro-symbolic differential diagnosis pipeline built around that philosophy. NSIDDx uses a large language model for what it does well — synthesising clinical narratives, generating structured reasoning chains, producing readable explanations — while independently validating that reasoning through a symbolic layer grounded in HPO/MONDO (Gargano et al., 2024) and PrimeKG (Chandak et al., 2023). The practitioner can read the Propositional Logic (PL) audit string, inspect the graph, and disagree: they can add a symptom the model missed, remove a candidate they consider implausible, and rerun the scoring pipeline. The loop is not closed without them.

Our contributions are two-fold:

(A) Position and Design Principles. We distill five design principles for clinician-in-the-loop clinical NLP — surface contradiction, preserve negation structurally, make override cheap, provide multi-level explanation, and design for offline deployment — intended as actionable guidelines for the community.

(B) System Instantiation and Failure Characterisation. We present NSIDDx as a concrete instantiation of these principles, built around a ternary symptom encoding scheme ($+1$ present, $-1$ explicitly denied, $0$ unrecorded), a dual-formula scoring engine combining a contradiction-sensitive matrix score and a coverage-penalising hybrid score, and a Negation-Retaining Phenotype Graph that renders absent findings as structural nodes rather than silently discarding them. We evaluate this pipeline under open-ended conditions with no multiple-choice scaffolding, characterising systematic failure modes — vocabulary mismatch, confidence-without-grounding, and negation inversion — that make clinician intervention a routine requirement rather than an edge case. NSIDDx’s symbolic transparency layer is proposed as the architectural response. We do not claim diagnostic superiority — our contribution is architectural.

We acknowledge that no user study or clinical validation has been conducted. The argument for clinician involvement is theoretical and demonstrated by one case study, and explicitly invites prospective validation.

Large language models have demonstrated strong performance on medical benchmarks (Singhal et al., 2023; Nori et al., 2023). Health-LLM (Yu et al., 2025) extends this with a two-pass RAG pipeline and XGBoost classifier for personalised prediction, but the clinician receives a label with no inspectable logic chain and no mechanism for override.

AMIE (Tu et al., 2025) shows conversational AI can match physician accuracy in OSCE studies but does not expose an inspectable reasoning chain or practitioner override mechanism. In low-resource settings, the ability to interrogate and correct AI suggestions may be more valuable than raw accuracy.

MedKGI (Wang et al., 2025a) models multi-step diagnosis as an iterative conversational loop using information gain over KG subgraphs. It does not model absent symptoms — negative findings are neither elicited nor encoded, and clinicians cannot see which absent symptoms are relevant to the differential. NSIDDx is complementary: where MedKGI optimises automated history-taking over positive findings, NSIDDx makes negation explicit and inspectable after history collection.

Wang et al. (2025b) fine-tune lightweight LLMs on PrimeKG-scaffolded reasoning paths for next-visit prediction, encoding visits as binary ICD-9 vectors — structurally unable to represent explicit symptom denials ($x_{i}=-1$). The reasoning chain is not inspectable and absent findings are implicit. Our two-cohort evaluation quantifies this opacity: 41.6% of DDx@5 semantic hits on CUPCase are tokenically unverifiable without an audit trail.

Mondal et al. (2025) and Lu et al. (2025) apply LNN-based methods to explainable diabetes prediction, exposing auditable reasoning with negation support, but operate on low-dimensional tabular data with statically defined rules and cannot parse unstructured clinical narratives.

RADAR (Kim et al., 2025) applies FAISS to rare disease retrieval in brain MRI; Zelin et al. (2024) explore knowledge-guided RAG for rare disease diagnosis. NSIDDx’s scanner differs: it operates over clinical text, is grounded in ZebraMap (Islam et al., 2026), and scores candidates through the same dual-source symbolic pipeline as the primary DDx, offline without API access.

Ada DX (Ronicke et al., 2019) demonstrates the value of accepting present and absent findings with full practitioner override, but operates as a probabilistic expert system on structured symptom input rather than free-text narratives.

Table 1 situates NSIDDx among prior systems. The claim is not individual feature novelty but that the specific integration of all five dimensions — negation modelling, override interface, offline capability, unstructured text input, and KG grounding — is novel in neuro-symbolic clinical NLP.

Knowledge base files are sourced from HPO (hp.obo, phenotype.hpoa), MONDO (mondo.owl), and PrimeKG (kg.feather). HPO terms are extracted into a symptom catalog; unannotated modifier and inheritance terms are excluded. MONDO cross-references unify OMIM and ORPHA identifiers; entries with zero present-symptom annotations are dropped, yielding roughly 10,800 disease profiles. For PrimeKG, disease-phenotype edges are bridged to HPO IDs; disease-disease edges are excluded. Over 9,000 phenotype-bearing entities enter the scoring pipeline. The NSIDDx pipeline, including all preprocessing scripts and filter thresholds, is publicly available at https://github.com/joetheguide2/NSIDDX-.

Analysis of HPO resolver mappings identified 26 cases where explicitly denied symptoms were semantically mapped to affirmative HPO terms, entering the scoring pipeline as positive evidence. Examples include: DENIED: pain $\rightarrow$ Pain insensitivity, DENIED: hemoptysis $\rightarrow$ Hemoptysis, No remarkable family history $\rightarrow$ hereditary fructose intolerance. In the sarcoidosis case (Section 6), six of seven absent symptoms were LLM-inferred rather than explicitly denied, causing matrix score $-0.024$ for the correct diagnosis. This failure class is structurally undetectable in any pipeline without explicit polarity encoding.

Categories 1 and 2 are domain-level failures requiring clinician oversight regardless of ontology coverage. Category 3 calls for synonym normalisation and an audit trail so the clinician can verify tokenically unverifiable hits. Category 4 confirms that symbolic path confirmation is unavailable for most cases; the PL string and negation graph provide alternative explanation modalities independent of score magnitude. Active contradictions and negation inversions require no system change — surfacing them is the design goal.

A 64-year-old Japanese woman presents with exertional dyspnea, bilateral pleural effusions, bilateral hilar and mediastinal lymphadenopathy, subcutaneous nodules, and non-caseous epithelioid granulomas on biopsy. The correct diagnosis is Sarcoidosis (Kesici et al., 2014). The automated pipeline extracts 5 present and 7 absent symptoms:

Present (5): HP:0002094 dyspnea, HP:0032252 granuloma, HP:0034388 hilar lymphadenopathy, HP:0100721 mediastinal lymphadenopathy, HP:0002202 pleural effusion.

Absent (7): HP:0100749 $\neg$chest pain, HP:0012735 $\neg$cough, HP:0001945 $\neg$fever, HP:0002105 $\neg$hemoptysis, HP:0030166 $\neg$night sweats, HP:0001962 $\neg$palpitations, HP:0001824 $\neg$weight loss.

All seven absent symptoms are generated by the LLM’s structured reformatting step, which infers pertinent negatives from the narrative even where the case text does not explicitly deny them. Splenomegaly, documented via gallium-67 scintigraphy showing abnormal splenic uptake, is not extracted because no explicit “splenomegaly” surface form appears in the HPO synonym dictionary.

The resulting automated score for Sarcoidosis is $\text{MONDO}_{m}=-0.024$, $\text{MONDO}_{h}=0.512$ — the negative matrix score places it last in the symbolic ranking despite the LLM correctly nominating it first in the DDx. The system does not suppress this contradiction; the negative score is surfaced in the scoring output alongside the PL audit trail.

A researcher reviewed the raw case narrative alongside the automated symptom vector and performed three targeted interventions:

1. 1.

   Corrects the absent list: six of the seven absent symptoms (chest pain, cough, fever, haemoptysis, night sweats, weight loss) were not explicitly denied in the case text and are removed, retaining only $\neg$palpitations (HP:0001962) as a true absent finding.

2. 2.

   Adds splenomegaly by medical judgement: the gallium-67 scintigraphy finding of abnormal splenic uptake implies splenic involvement, even though no explicit “splenomegaly” string appears in the symptom extraction pass. The clinician enters it as /add_symptom splenomegaly.

3. 3.

   Re-runs /score.

Removing the six spurious absent symptoms resolves the matrix contradiction immediately: Sarcoidosis moves from $\text{MONDO}_{m}=-0.024$ to $\text{MONDO}_{m}=0.073$, $\text{MONDO}_{h}=0.284$. Adding splenomegaly improves coverage further: $\text{MONDO}_{m}=0.098$, $\text{MONDO}_{h}=0.331$. Sarcoidosis rises to rank 1 in the scored DDx.

The corrected present vector contains 7 HPO IDs (dyspnea, hilar lymphadenopathy, mediastinal lymphadenopathy, pleural effusion, subcutaneous nodules, granuloma, splenomegaly) and 1 absent ($\neg$palpitations). The full-database sweeps independently confirm Sarcoidosis at top ranks across all scoring sources.

The PL audit string for the corrected state reads:

(Dyspnea) $\wedge$ (Mediastinal lymphadenopathy) $\wedge$ (Pleural effusion) $\wedge$ (Splenomegaly) $\Rightarrow$ sarcoidosis, susceptibility to, 1

Figure 2 shows the Negation-Retaining Phenotype Graph for the corrected state.

This case demonstrates the design philosophy: the system surfaced a symbolic contradiction, the practitioner corrected extraction errors via override, and convergent evidence confirmed the corrected diagnosis. It does not represent typical recovery rates (Section 5). The three interventions required represent capabilities that Category 3 analysis indicates 208 CUPCase cases would benefit from. We do not claim this recovery rate is generalisable without a user study; we demonstrate that the mechanism functions as designed in this instance.

When the symbolic layer disagrees with the LLM, the system should present both outputs side-by-side. The contradiction is the signal: it flags uncertainty, extraction failure, or missing clinician knowledge. In the sarcoidosis case (Section 6), the negative matrix score ($-0.024$) correctly identified an extraction error — the system flagged its own mistake rather than hiding it.

Denied symptoms are first-class citizens in scoring, graphs, and reasoning chains. NSIDDx encodes them as $-1$ in the ternary vector and renders them as grey nodes in the negation graph, visually distinct from confirmed findings. The sarcoidosis contradiction (matrix $-0.024$ from spurious absent symptoms) motivates this design.

Yet a symptom may be structurally absent (the profile expects it) without being clinically meaningfully absent at a given stage of presentation. The ternary vector cannot represent this temporal distinction; the override interface exists to admit the clinical judgment that no encoding can capture by design.

The practitioner can add, remove, or modify symptoms at any stage, with changes propagating through scoring, graph, and reasoning chains in real time. Override actions are auditable: what changed and why is visible. In NSIDDx, /add_symptom and /remove_symptom trigger immediate re-scoring and regeneration of all outputs.

Different clinicians prefer different explanation formats: some read PL audit strings, others inspect graphs, others examine raw scores. NSIDDx provides all three. No single explanation format works for all users, and the system should not force a choice. This aligns with the layered explanation paradigm established in the XAI literature (Doshi-Velez and Kim, 2017). Numerical scores alone can be insufficient; the PL string and negation graph provide complementary modalities independent of score magnitude.

Low-resource settings cannot rely on cloud APIs. Systems designed for these settings must run locally on commodity hardware. This is not a technical constraint — it is a design requirement that shapes every architectural choice, from the selection of quantized models (Qwen3.5-9B-IQ4_XS.gguf) to the decision to use deterministic scoring alongside probabilistic LLM output.

MedSpaCy TargetRule matching performs literal string lookup against a large synonym dictionary. A semantic fallback (Abhinand/MedEmbed-large-v0.1, cosine threshold 0.7) resolves colloquial terms such as “SOB” to dyspnea, but the threshold was not ablated and false positives are possible; match quality is uncertain. Each extracted symptom is tagged with its resolution method (literal/semantic); the practitioner can inspect and correct any mapping via /add_symptom.

PrimeKG has limited coverage of common diseases: many conditions a general practitioner would recognise confidently (e.g., pharyngitis, bronchitis) lack curated phenotype entries in the graph, producing zero or low KG scores for diagnoses that are clinically straightforward. The HPO/MONDO matrix score is unaffected by this gap. NSIDDx is most valuable for complex, multisystem presentations where GPs genuinely benefit from structured support. This limitation is partially mitigated by the dual-source design: while PrimeKG scores may be near-zero for common conditions, the HPO/MONDO matrix score remains operational, and the LLM-generated DDx is not suppressed by low KG scores.

The LLM may generate plausible but factually incorrect reasoning chains, particularly for rare diseases with sparse training data representation. The symbolic scoring layer exists precisely as an independent validation step: if the LLM proposes a diagnosis that the matrix score actively contradicts, the practitioner sees both the narrative reasoning and the symbolic contradiction. The system does not suppress the LLM’s output; it presents it alongside its symbolic assessment.

The pipeline treats clinician-reported negations as structurally meaningful diagnostic signals. In real settings, patients may not volunteer absent symptoms unless explicitly asked. The history-taking agent partially addresses this through targeted pertinent-negative elicitation, but cannot guarantee completeness.

The pipeline currently operates on English clinical text. Many low-resource settings operate in Hindi, Swahili, or other languages. Cross-lingual extension is outside the scope of this version; the modular architecture is designed to support alternative extraction front-ends.

NSIDDx reasons over a single clinical encounter. Chronic or evolving presentations with important longitudinal signal are outside the current design scope.

The graph correctly captures qualifier relationships between HPO terms via PrimeKG’s phenotype_modifier_of edges. However, the symbolic scoring layer does not exploit this binding: modifier terms extracted by MedSpaCy are entered into $\mathbf{V}_{p}$ as independent $+1$ entries, creating a gap between the graph’s semantic fidelity and the scoring layer’s representational granularity. Composing modifier-symptom pairs into single weighted phenotype entries prior to scoring is a direction for future work.

Evaluation is conducted on 750 cases from the CUPCase benchmark across two cohorts — real-world published case reports. The sample reflects hardware constraints (one to three minutes per case on the target hardware). Notably, CUPCase cases are selected for their diagnostic interest and completeness, which may overestimate system performance compared to routine clinical notes that are often fragmented or incomplete. Real-world EHR validation and evaluation on the full CUPCase corpus remain necessary next steps before clinical deployment.

The evaluation relies on semantic similarity (cosine similarity of sentence embeddings) as a matching metric. Across the CUPCase cohort, 83.5% of rare scanner outputs and 41.6% of DDx@5 semantic hits carry no tokenically verifiable relationship to the ground-truth diagnosis. Whether these semantic hits represent genuine synonymy or embedding artefacts cannot be determined without expert review — a core motivation for the practitioner override interface.

The override interventions in Section 6 were performed by a researcher reviewing the case narrative alongside the automated symptom vector, not by a clinician in a live diagnostic setting. The case study demonstrates the mechanism functions as designed but provides no evidence about human behaviour with the system. Prospective user studies with practising clinicians are necessary and explicitly invited.

The ternary-hybrid scoring formulas were designed for interpretability rather than diagnostic accuracy. No hyperparameter tuning was performed; the equal-weight combination (0.5/0.5) was selected for transparency. Future work should explore learned weights that preserve interpretability while improving discrimination.

For us, positive impact in clinical NLP is not primarily measured in benchmark accuracy. It is measured in access: whether a practitioner in a clinic with no specialist referral network, no reliable internet connection, and no clinical decision support infrastructure can use a system to surface a differential diagnosis they might otherwise have missed, inspect the reasoning behind it, and make a better-informed decision for their patient. NSIDDx is designed with this practitioner in mind. Its offline deployability, consumer hardware requirements, and practitioner-in-the-loop architecture are not technical constraints — they are the design goal. Following the NLP4PI workshop’s emphasis on impact grounding (Pant et al., 2025), we define positive impact as democratized access to structured differential reasoning — the ability of any practitioner, regardless of institutional resources, to receive a transparent, auditable diagnostic aid that respects clinical expertise and local data sovereignty.

NSIDDx is an assistive tool, not an autonomous diagnostic system. It does not make diagnoses. Every output — the DDx ranking, the PL string, the phenotypic graph — is presented to the practitioner as structured information to reason with, not a decision to accept. The system is explicitly designed so that disagreement is easy: the practitioner can add symptoms, remove candidates, and rerun the pipeline in seconds.

Any decision support system carries a risk of automation bias: the tendency of clinicians to anchor on system outputs even when their own clinical judgment diverges. The PL strings and phenotypic graphs are designed to invite disagreement — a practitioner who reads $(\text{Alopecia})\wedge(\text{Malar rash})\Rightarrow\text{SLE}$ and knows the patient also has a finding not captured in the system has a clear signal that the system’s evidence base is incomplete. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the risk of over-reliance cannot be fully designed away and should be addressed through practitioner training and deployment guidance.

We deliberately invert the hoofbeats heuristic for low-resource settings: when specialist referral is unavailable, surfacing a rare disease candidate with moderate confidence is more ethical than suppressing it. This inversion is bounded by three constraints: the scanner is optional and off by default; it activates only for presentations with eight or more symptoms; and low-scoring candidates (including negative matrix scores) are visually deprioritised.

The evaluation uses 750 cases from the CUPCase benchmark across two cohorts, a publicly available collection of real-world BMC patient case reports. The sample reflects inference time constraints on consumer hardware. Validation on institution-specific EHR data, with appropriate ethics approvals and data governance, is required before any clinical deployment.

NSIDDx is explicitly positioned as a research prototype, not a clinical tool. Any future deployment would require institutional review board approval, HIPAA/GDPR compliance audits, and a phased clinical validation protocol. The system’s architecture — local processing, no cloud dependency, auditable reasoning chains — is designed to facilitate, not circumvent, these governance requirements.

The instantiated system currently operates only in English. This limits immediate applicability in many of the low-resource settings it is designed to serve. We recognise this as a significant equity gap and identify multilingual extension as a priority for future work.

NSIDDx operates entirely locally. No patient information is sent to external servers or APIs. This is both a practical requirement for offline deployment and an ethical requirement for patient data sovereignty in settings where data protection infrastructure may be limited.