Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39691157›Full record

ArticleProceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics2024

Leveraging Professional Radiologists' Expertise to Enhance LLMs' Evaluation for AI-generated Radiology Reports.

Qingqing Zhu, Xiuying Chen, Qiao Jin, Benjamin Hou, Tejas Sudharshan Mathai, Pritam Mukherjee, Xin Gao, Ronald M Summers, Zhiyong Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Qingqing ZhuNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Xiuying ChenBioscience Reseach Center, King Abdullah University of Science & Technology, Saudi Arabia.
Qiao JinNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Benjamin HouImaging Biomarkers and Computer-Aided Diagnosis Laboratory, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Tejas Sudharshan MathaiImaging Biomarkers and Computer-Aided Diagnosis Laboratory, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Pritam MukherjeeImaging Biomarkers and Computer-Aided Diagnosis Laboratory, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Xin GaoBioscience Reseach Center, King Abdullah University of Science & Technology, Saudi Arabia.
Ronald M SummersImaging Biomarkers and Computer-Aided Diagnosis Laboratory, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Zhiyong LuNational Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

Machine learning for medical imaging: automated disease diagnosis and prognosisZIALM010021 · NLM · NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE · PI LU, ZHIYONG · 2022 to 2025
$4.1M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA LM010021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In radiology, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly advanced report generation, but automatic evaluation of these AI-produced reports remains challenging. Current metrics, such as Conventional Natural Language Generation (NLG) and Clinical Efficacy (CE), often fall short in capturing the semantic intricacies of clinical contexts or overemphasize clinical details, undermining report clarity. To overcome these issues, our proposed method synergizes the expertise of professional radiologists with Large Language Models (LLMs), like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Utilizing In-Context Instruction Learning (ICIL) and Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning, our approach aligns LLM evaluations with radiologist standards, enabling detailed comparisons between human and AI-generated reports. This is further enhanced by a Regression model that aggregates sentence evaluation scores. Experimental results show that our "Detailed GPT-4 (5-shot)" model achieves a correlation that is 0.48, outperforming the METEOR metric by 0.19, while our "Regressed GPT-4" model shows even greater alignment(0.64) with expert evaluations, exceeding the best existing metric by a 0.35 margin. Moreover, the robustness of our explanations has been validated through a thorough iterative strategy. We plan to publicly release annotations from radiology experts, setting a new standard for accuracy in future assessments. This underscores the potential of our approach in enhancing the quality assessment of AI-driven medical reports.

Identifiers

PMID39691157
PMCPMC11651630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.