Papers › Extrinsically-Focused Evaluation of Omissions in Medical Summarization
Extrinsically-Focused Evaluation of Omissions in Medical Summarization
Elliot Schumacher, Daniel Rosenthal, Dhruv Naik, Varun Nair, Luladay Price, Geoffrey Tso, Anitha Kannan
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in safety-critical applications such as healthcare, yet the ability to quantify performance has lagged. An example of this challenge is in evaluating a summary of the patient's medical record. A resulting summary can enable the provider to get a high-level overview of the patient's health status quickly. Yet, a summary that omits important facts about the patient's record can produce a misleading picture. This can lead to negative consequences on medical decision-making. We propose MED-OMIT as a metric to explore this challenge. We focus on using provider-patient history conversations to generate a subjective (a summary of the patient's history) as a case study. We begin by discretizing facts from the dialogue and identifying which are omitted from the subjective. To determine which facts are clinically relevant, we measure the importance of each fact to a simulated differential diagnosis. We compare MED-OMIT's performance to that of clinical experts and find broad agreement We use MED-OMIT to evaluate LLM performance on subjective generation and find some LLMs (gpt-4 and llama-3.1-405b) work well with little effort, while others (e.g. Llama 2) perform worse.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. 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
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
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