arXiv AI

Can Jev Judge Radiology Reports? Evaluating a System One Model for Clinical Factuality

arXiv AI
Jun 9

RadOT-Eval: Auditable Structured-Evidence Transport for Radiology Report Evaluation

arXiv:2606. 08769v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automatic evaluation is critical for high-stakes text generation, where errors often involve omitted findings, hallucinated content, polarity reversals, location changes, uncertainty mismatches, and temporal-comparison errors rather than low surface similarity alone.

By Weixin Liu, Juming Xiong, Yang Li, Qingyuan Song, Susannah Rose, Murat Kantarcioglu, Bradley Malin, Zhijun Yin
arXiv AI
Sep 17

Reporting Practice Matters: The Impact of Reference Choice on Chest X-ray Report Evaluation

The study examines how differences in radiologists’ reporting styles—such as terminology, shorthand, formatting, and detail—affect the evaluation of AI-generated chest X‑ray reports. By quantifying the sensitivity of common metrics to these variations, the authors show that changes in reference reports can shift model rankings. They introduce a taxonomy of reporting variations and a rewriting method, ReRef, that preserves clinical meaning while altering style, and release a validated dataset of paired reference reports to aid future research.

By Daniel P. Jeong, Charles Q. Li, Hossein Hosseiny, Nitya M. Bhalla, Fatma Uyar Morency, Pradeep Ravikumar, Zachary C. Lipton, Michael Oberst
arXiv AI
Jun 15

Can LLMs Accurately Score Medical Diagnoses and Clinical Reasoning?

arXiv:2604. 14892v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators.

By Amy Rouillard, Sitwala Mundia, Linda Camara, Ziyaad Dangor, Michael Cameron Gramanie, Ismail Kalla, Shabir A. Madhi, Kajal Morar, Marlvin T. Ncube, Haroon Saloojee, Bruce A. Bassett
arXiv AI
23h ago

Jev in Medicine: A Benchmark Evaluation

The study evaluates Jev 1.13, a non‑generative model that selects from predefined answer options, on four medical benchmarks: MetaMedQA, PubMedQA, DiagnosisArena‑MCQ, and the NEJM Case Challenges. Jev’s top‑1 accuracy matches GPT‑6 Sol with medium reasoning on PubMedQA but falls behind on MetaMedQA, DiagnosisArena‑MCQ, and NEJM cases. While Jev shows strong calibration on MetaMedQA and is fast and inexpensive, its performance on examination and complex diagnostic tasks is substantially lower, indicating the need for task‑specific validation before clinical deployment.

By Alfredo Madrid-Garc\'ia, Beatriz Merino-Barbancho
arXiv AI
Jul 8

Harrison.Rad 1.5 Technical Report: A radiology foundation model that can draft reports from images, priors and clinical context

arXiv:2607. 05880v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Imaging demand is growing faster than the radiology workforce can expand, and reporting backlogs cannot be resolved through training and recruitment alone.

By Suneeta Mall, Vladimir Nekrasov, Ashnil Kumar, Sajith Karunasena, Aiden Nibali, Alix Bird, Mateo Diaz Shine, Jarrel Seah
arXiv Computation and Language
4d ago

Where Does Retrieval-Based Open-Ended Evaluation Fail? Automatic Taxonomy Induction from Long-Form Medical Answer Factuality Verification

The paper investigates why retrieval‑based open‑ended evaluation fails in medical fact verification. By creating two detailed taxonomies—one for retrieval‑stage errors across five quality dimensions and another for verifier‑reasoning errors across six steps—the authors automatically label evidence quality and reasoning errors using an LLM‑as‑Judge pipeline. Their large‑scale stress tests across multiple retrieval methods and verifier models show that increasing model size, reasoning effort, source breadth, or medical fine‑tuning does not eliminate these failure modes, indicating fundamental limits of the retrieve‑then‑verify paradigm in open‑ended medical contexts.

By Heyuan Huang, Jirui Dai, Alexandra DeLucia, Sonal Joshi, Mahsa Yarmohammadi, Jie Gao, Bernal Jim\'enez Guti\'errez, Mark Dredze
arXiv AI
Sep 15

KnowBench: Effort Reduction as a Unified, Deployment-Grounded Benchmark for Clinical AI

KnowBench is a new benchmark for clinical AI that measures Effort Reduction (ER), the proportion of system-generated clinical work product accepted by clinicians after expert and safety review. The metric is applied uniformly across various administrative tasks—visit notes, billing codes, orders, EHR summarization, patient summaries, and decision support—using the clinician’s review-and-attestation as ground truth. An initial deployment of Knowtex’s models achieved an aggregate ER of 97.99% across more than one million encounters in six months, with specialty-specific ER ranging from 96.8% to 98.9%.

By Jocelyn Kang, Caroline Zhang
arXiv AI
23h ago

Scaling Clinical Judgment to Evaluate Medical AI

arXiv:2609.12822v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Blinded physician evaluation has been considered by many to be the gold standard for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)....

By Thomas A. Buckley, Zahir Kanjee, Peter G. Brodeur, Byron Crowe, Anthony M. Pettinato, Aashna P. Shah, Adrian D. Haimovich, Liam G. McCoy, Daniel Restrepo, Jason A. Freed, Ethan Goh, Jonathan H. Chen, Laura Zwaan, Katherine E. Goodman, Daniel J. Morgan, Raja-Elie E. Abdulnour, Adam Rodman, Arjun K. Manrai