ReXamine-Global: A Framework for Uncovering Inconsistencies in Radiology Report Generation Metrics

Given the rapidly expanding capabilities of generative AI models for radiology, there is a need for robust metrics that can accurately measure the quality of AI-generated radiology reports across diverse hospitals. We develop ReXamine-Global, a LLM-powered, multi-site framework that tests metrics across different writing styles and patient populations, exposing gaps in their generalization. First, our method tests whether a metric is undesirably sensitive to reporting style, providing different scores depending on whether AI-generated reports are stylistically similar to ground-truth reports or not. Second, our method measures whether a metric reliably agrees with experts, or whether metric and expert scores of AI-generated report quality diverge for some sites. Using 240 reports from 6 hospitals around the world, we apply ReXamine-Global to 7 established report evaluation metrics and uncover serious gaps in their generalizability. Developers can apply ReXamine-Global when designing new report evaluation metrics, ensuring their robustness across sites. Additionally, our analysis of existing metrics can guide users of those metrics towards evaluation procedures that work reliably at their sites of interest.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2024-11-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789819807024_0014
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.81
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

ReXamine-Global: A Framework for Uncovering Inconsistencies in Radiology Report Generation Metrics

Pranav Rajpurkar, Alain S. Abi‐Ghanem, Patricia Castillo, Frederic Jonske et al.
2 citations
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
0.81
article

ReXamine-Global: A Framework for Uncovering Inconsistencies in Radiology Report Generation Metrics

Pranav Rajpurkar, Alain S. Abi‐Ghanem, Patricia Castillo, Frederic Jonske, Johannes Haubold, Agustina Saenz, Lars Heiliger, Cibele Luna, Adil Zia, Moon Kim, Oishi Banerjee, Helen Kavnoudias, Warren Clements, Kay Wu, Khaled Al-Surimi, Rayyan A. Daghistani, Dominic Buensalido, Nour El Ghawi, Yuh‐Min Chen, Heng-sheng Chao
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Given the rapidly expanding capabilities of generative AI models for radiology, there is a need for robust metrics that can accurately measure the quality of AI-generated radiology reports across diverse hospitals. We develop ReXamine-Global, a LLM-powered, multi-site framework that tests metrics across different writing styles and patient populations, exposing gaps in their generalization. First, our method tests whether a metric is undesirably sensitive to reporting style, providing different scores depending on whether AI-generated reports are stylistically similar to ground-truth reports or not. Second, our method measures whether a metric reliably agrees with experts, or whether metric and expert scores of AI-generated report quality diverge for some sites. Using 240 reports from 6 hospitals around the world, we apply ReXamine-Global to 7 established report evaluation metrics and uncover serious gaps in their generalizability. Developers can apply ReXamine-Global when designing new report evaluation metrics, ensuring their robustness across sites. Additionally, our analysis of existing metrics can guide users of those metrics towards evaluation procedures that work reliably at their sites of interest.

Vol. 30
Harvard University (US), University of Miami (US), King Abdulaziz Medical City (SA), Jackson Memorial Hospital (US), Taipei Veterans General Hospital (TW), Qatar Science and Technology Park (QA), Essen University Hospital (DE), Alfred Health (AU), American University of Beirut (LB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
0.81
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.