RadMatch is the most clinically aligned metric, matching inter-radiologist agreement on ReXVal and more than doubling the best prior metric on the harder RadEvalExpert, and is designed to extend to other modalities and anatomies.
Abstract
As AI systems are increasingly used to draft radiology reports, reliably evaluating their clinical quality remains a critical challenge. Large language model (LLM)-based metrics are now the best-correlated with radiologist judgment, yet they output a single opaque score that neither a clinician nor a model builder can easily interpret or audit. We introduce RadMatch, a multi-stage, LLM-based metric that decomposes report comparison into a structured finding-level matching with significance-aware scoring and error characterization across seven clinical attribute dimensions (status, location, severity, morphology, certainty, longitudinal comparison, and measurement). The main score is the actionable-error count, both interpretable and auditable. Candidate findings are graded correct, partial, or incorrect, and unmatched findings are counted as missed or hallucinated. Triage and actionable safety recall/precision and per-subset views add complementary, deployment-oriented lenses. Across two expert benchmarks, RadMatch is the most clinically aligned metric, matching inter-radiologist agreement on ReXVal and more than doubling the best prior metric on the harder RadEvalExpert. Relying only on few-shot prompting, it is designed to extend to other modalities and anatomies. We will release RadMatch as open-source code with an interactive dashboard for inspecting results.
Structured prompting improves detection of interpretation and section-consistency errors across seven models and consistently enhances LLM-based error detection, closing the gap between open-source and commercial models and offering a pathway for privacy-preserving, on-premises QA.
Jia Li, Zi-Chun Zhou, Yan-Tao Niu et al.· European Radiology Experimen...· 0 citations
This paper quantifies the sensitivity of established evaluation metrics to variations in reporting practices and introduces a radiologist-informed taxonomy of variations in radiology reporting practice and a method (ReRef) that rewrites reference reports along the axes of the authors' taxonomy while preserving clinical...
Daniel P. Jeong, Charles Q. Li, H. Hosseiny et al.· 0 citations
Findings and error-scope analyses show that benchmark agreement reflects report size and error definitions as well as medical error detection, and local RadMatch achieves stronger agreement on clinically significant errors in both expert datasets and on total errors in the shared RadEvalExpert subset.
Jia-Ju Huang, Hao Yang, Xin-Yu Ma et al.· 7 citations· ⚡1
Clinical deployment of artificial intelligence-generated radiology reports requires explicit entity-relation validation, structured accuracy assessment, and radiologist oversight to protect patient safety, and these findings reinforce a broader principle.
Saleh Alzughaibi· Frontiers in Digital Health· 0 citations
Three generative vision-language models were evaluated on three institutional chest-radiograph corpora and six findings under two elicitation protocols, comprising more than 345,000 finding-level predictions, and estimated finding-by-direction reference agreement at a receiving institution from a small budget of local...
Peng-Yang Yu, Yio Wang, Zhong-Ping Dong et al.· 0 citations
LLMs generated radiology-relevant indications from clinical notes that were more comprehensive and factual than clinician indications, and when generated by the proprietary LLM, were ranked most useful in protocoling and imaging interpretation.
A. Serapio, Timothy L. Chen, Brian Tangsombatvisit et al.· Radiology· 1 citation
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.