Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

Composing insight from the full article — this may take a moment.

Sources coveringarXiv, Quantum Zeitgeist

Performance, Scalability and Maintenance: An Experimental Study of RPA vs. Autonomous Agents in the Healthcare Domain

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2611.03853v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Healthcare information systems are fragmented, and retrieving data from legacy web portals is a recurrent need. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is deterministic but sensitive to interface changes, whereas autonomous agents based on large language models (Agent Process Automation, APA) promise adaptability at a higher computational cost. Following Design Science Research, we developed and compared an RPA solution (Playwright) and an APA solution (browser-use, LangGraph and Gemini 2.5 Flash-lite) to retrieve mammography and breast ultrasound reports from a laboratory portal, treating reports solely as informational artifacts. Across two rounds (T and T+7), RPA reached 98.90% accuracy and 98.27% F1-score versus 96.49% and 94.48% for APA, was about 13 times faster (16.07 s vs. 207.21 s per patient) and cost about six times less per report (USD 0.030 vs. 0.187). Both reached 100% step success rates; APA varied more over time. For a stable interface, RPA was superior.

Title:Performance, Scalability and Maintenance: An Experimental Study of RPA vs. Autonomous Agents in the Healthcare Domain

Abstract:Healthcare information systems are fragmented, and retrieving data from legacy web portals is a recurrent need. Robotic Process Automation (RPA) is deterministic but sensitive to interface changes, whereas autonomous agents based on large language models (Agent Process Automation, APA) promise adaptability at a higher computational cost. Following Design Science Research, we developed and compared an RPA solution (Playwright) and an APA solution (browser-use, LangGraph and Gemini 2.5 Flash-lite) to retrieve mammography and breast ultrasound reports from a laboratory portal, treating reports solely as informational artifacts. Across two rounds (T and T+7), RPA reached 98.90% accuracy and 98.27% F1-score versus 96.49% and 94.48% for APA, was about 13 times faster (16.07 s vs. 207.21 s per patient) and cost about six times less per report (USD 0.030 vs. 0.187). Both reached 100% step success rates; APA varied more over time. For a stable interface, RPA was superior.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Software Engineering (cs.SE)

arXiv:2611.03853 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2611.03853v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.03853 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 259 words

Related coverage