Papers › ReEvalMed: Rethinking Medical Report Evaluation by Aligning Metrics with Real-World...
ReEvalMed: Rethinking Medical Report Evaluation by Aligning Metrics with Real-World Clinical Judgment
Ruochen Li, Jun Li, Bailiang Jian, Kun Yuan, Youxiang Zhu
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Automatically generated radiology reports often receive high scores from existing evaluation metrics but fail to earn clinicians' trust. This gap reveals fundamental flaws in how current metrics assess the quality of generated reports. We rethink the design and evaluation of these metrics and propose a clinically grounded Meta-Evaluation framework. We define clinically grounded criteria spanning clinical alignment and key metric capabilities, including discrimination, robustness, and monotonicity. Using a fine-grained dataset of ground truth and rewritten report pairs annotated with error types, clinical significance labels, and explanations, we systematically evaluate existing metrics and reveal their limitations in interpreting clinical semantics, such as failing to distinguish clinically significant errors, over-penalizing harmless variations, and lacking consistency across error severity levels. Our framework offers guidance for building more clinically reliable evaluation methods.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Syntology holds the repository link but has not harvested or run code from it.
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2510.00280, was issued in October 2025, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections