ArticleProceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics2024
Leveraging Professional Radiologists' Expertise to Enhance LLMs' Evaluation for AI-generated Radiology Reports.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cross-Domain Chest Radiograph Report Generation Under Dataset Shift: Bidirectional Audit Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Across the Radiology Workflow: A Nine-Stage Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Can AI write reports like a radiologist? A blinded evaluation of large language model-generated lumbar spine MRI reports.European radiology experimental · 2026Observational
- Agentic artificial intelligence in radiology workflow: from image interpretation to report quality control.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Trends and Trajectories in the Rise of Large Language Models in Radiology: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Two stage large language model approach enhancing entity classification and relationship mapping in radiology reports.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Developing artificial intelligence tools for institutional review board pre-review: A pilot study on ChatGPT's accuracy and reproducibility.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Beyond Multiple-Choice Accuracy: Real-World Challenges of Implementing Large Language Models in Healthcare.ArXiv · 2024Article
- How Well Do Multi-modal LLMs Interpret CT Scans? An Auto-Evaluation Framework for Analyses.ArXiv · 2024Article
- Harnessing GPT-4 for automated error detection in pathology reports: Implications for oncology diagnostics.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.