Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

GREEN: Generative Radiology Report Evaluation and Error Notation

About

Evaluating radiology reports is a challenging problem as factual correctness is extremely important due to the need for accurate medical communication about medical images. Existing automatic evaluation metrics either suffer from failing to consider factual correctness (e.g., BLEU and ROUGE) or are limited in their interpretability (e.g., F1CheXpert and F1RadGraph). In this paper, we introduce GREEN (Generative Radiology Report Evaluation and Error Notation), a radiology report generation metric that leverages the natural language understanding of language models to identify and explain clinically significant errors in candidate reports, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Compared to current metrics, GREEN offers: 1) a score aligned with expert preferences, 2) human interpretable explanations of clinically significant errors, enabling feedback loops with end-users, and 3) a lightweight open-source method that reaches the performance of commercial counterparts. We validate our GREEN metric by comparing it to GPT-4, as well as to error counts of 6 experts and preferences of 2 experts. Our method demonstrates not only higher correlation with expert error counts, but simultaneously higher alignment with expert preferences when compared to previous approaches.

Sophie Ostmeier, Justin Xu, Zhihong Chen, Maya Varma, Louis Blankemeier, Christian Bluethgen, Arne Edward Michalson, Michael Moseley, Curtis Langlotz, Akshay S Chaudhari, Jean-Benoit Delbrouck• 2024

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Correlation with radiologist-derived clinically significant error countsReXVal BLEU-optimized candidate reports (n = 50)
Kendall Tau0.8
12
Correlation with radiologist-derived clinically significant error countsReXVal BERTScore-optimized candidate reports (n = 50)
Kendall Tau0.75
12
Correlation with radiologist-derived clinically significant error countsReXVal CheXbert-optimized candidate reports (n = 50)
Kendall's τ0.71
12
Correlation with radiologist-derived clinically significant error countsReXVal RadGraph-optimized candidate reports (n = 50)
Kendall τ0.71
12
Metric Correlation with Human JudgmentMerlin
Pearson Correlation0.309
7
Metric Correlation with Human JudgmentCT-RATE
Pearson Correlation0.111
7
Radiology Report EvaluationRadEval Error Annotations (test)
GREEN33.22
3
Radiology Report EvaluationRaTE-Eval Expert Scores 0-5 (test)
GREEN Score0.4322
3
Showing 8 of 8 rows

Other info

Follow for update