CT-FineBench: A Diagnostic Fidelity Benchmark for Fine-Grained Evaluation of CT Report Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24001v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 03:32:46 GMT
• Title: CT-FineBench: A Diagnostic Fidelity Benchmark for Fine-Grained Evaluation of CT Report Generation
• Abstract summary: Conventional evaluation metrics offer only coarse measures of lexical overlap or entity matching.<n>We propose CT-FineBench, a benchmark built from CT-RATE and Merlin to evaluate the fine-grained factual consistency of CT reports.<n>Our benchmark is constructed through a meticulous, Question-Answering (QA) based process.
• Score: 51.11942945171396
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The evaluation of generated reports remains a critical challenge in Computed Tomography (CT) report generation, due to the large volume of text, the diversity and complexity of findings, and the presence of fine-grained, disease-oriented attributes. Conventional evaluation metrics offer only coarse measures of lexical overlap or entity matching and fail to reflect the granular diagnostic accuracy required for clinical use. To address this gap, we propose CT-FineBench, a benchmark built from CT-RATE and Merlin to evaluate the fine-grained factual consistency of CT reports, constructed from CT-RATE and Merlin. Our benchmark is constructed through a meticulous, Question-Answering (QA) based process: first, we identify and structure key, finding-specific clinical attributes (like location, size, margin). Second, we systematically transform these attributes into a QA dataset, where questions probe for specific clinical details grounded in gold-standard reports. The evaluation protocol for CT-FineBench involves using this QA dataset to query a machine-generated report and scoring the correctness of the answers. This allows for a comprehensive, interpretable, and clinically-relevant assessment, moving beyond superficial lexical overlap to pinpoint specific clinical errors. Experiments show that CT-FineBench correlates better with expert clinical assessment and is substantially more sensitive to fine-grained factual errors than prior metrics.

Related papers

• PathReportEval: A Systematic Benchmark for Pathology Report Generation [5.733136272690028]
  We present a standardized benchmark and evaluation framework for pathology report generation.<n>The framework standardizes preprocessing, feature extraction, training, decoding, and evaluation.<n>A central contribution is the Clinical Report Quality Score (CRQS), a clinically grounded metric for evaluating factual correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-20T18:59:47Z)
• Beyond Scalar Scores: Exploring LLM-based Metrics for Clinical Significance Evaluation in Radiology Reports [49.5225801722164]
  Existing metrics obscure this requirement by reducing report quality to a medically ungrounded scalar.<n>We study this boundary using ReEvalMed benchmark as testbed and evaluate metric-level clinical significance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T08:10:30Z)
• ReportQA: QA-Based Radiology Report Evaluation [34.29681217890862]
  We propose ReportQA, a clinical-related and flexible radiology report evaluation framework.<n>We first collect datasets covering multiple imaging modalities and anatomical regions.<n>We then construct knowledge trees of clinical entities and attributes with radiologist guidance, and use large language models (LLMs) to extract structured information from raw reports.<n>During evaluation, the report is treated as context, and an LLM acts as a judge model to answer the QA pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-13T00:43:03Z)
• AgentsEval: Clinically Faithful Evaluation of Medical Imaging Reports via Multi-Agent Reasoning [73.50200033931148]
  We introduce AgentsEval, a multi-agent stream reasoning framework that emulates the collaborative diagnostic workflow of radiologists.<n>By dividing the evaluation process into interpretable steps including criteria definition, evidence extraction, alignment, and consistency scoring, AgentsEval provides explicit reasoning traces and structured clinical feedback.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that AgentsEval delivers clinically aligned, semantically faithful, and interpretable evaluations that remain robust under paraphrastic, semantic, and stylistic perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:59:13Z)
• CTest-Metric: A Unified Framework to Assess Clinical Validity of Metrics for CT Report Generation [8.08950963137043]
  We present CTest-Metric, a first unified metric assessment framework with three modules determining the clinical feasibility of metrics for CT RRG.<n>The modules test: (i) Writing Style Generalizability (WSG) via LLM-based rephrasing; (ii) Synthetic Error Injection (SEI) at graded severities; and (iii) Metrics-vs-Expert correlation (MvE) using clinician ratings on 175 "disagreement" cases.<n>Eight widely used metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR, BERTScore-F1, F1-RadGraph, Ra
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T18:09:19Z)
• Clinically Grounded Agent-based Report Evaluation: An Interpretable Metric for Radiology Report Generation [32.410641778559544]
  ICARE (Interpretable and Clinically-grounded Agent-based Report Evaluation) is an interpretable evaluation framework.<n>Two agents, each with either the ground-truth or generated report, generate clinically meaningful questions and quiz each other.<n>By linking scores to question-answer pairs, ICARE enables transparent, and interpretable assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T18:28:03Z)
• S-RRG-Bench: Structured Radiology Report Generation with Fine-Grained Evaluation Framework [39.542375803362965]
  Radiology report generation (RRG) for diagnostic images, such as chest X-rays, plays a pivotal role in both clinical practice and AI.<n>Traditional free-text reports suffer from redundancy and inconsistent language, complicating the extraction of critical clinical details.<n>We present a novel approach to S-RRG that includes dataset construction, model training, and the introduction of a new evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T05:49:41Z)
• CLEAR: A Clinically-Grounded Tabular Framework for Radiology Report Evaluation [14.580143601537957]
  We introduce a Clinically-grounded framework with Expert-curated labels and Attribute-level comparison for Radiology report evaluation (CLEAR)<n>CLEAR examines whether a report can accurately identify the presence or absence of medical conditions.<n>To measure the clinical alignment of CLEAR, we collaborate with five board-certified radiologists to develop CLEAR-Bench, a dataset of 100 chest X-ray reports from MIMIC-CXR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T07:32:12Z)
• Metrics that matter: Evaluating image quality metrics for medical image generation [48.85783422900129]
  This study comprehensively assesses commonly used no-reference image quality metrics using brain MRI data.<n>We evaluate metric sensitivity to a range of challenges, including noise, distribution shifts, and, critically, morphological alterations designed to mimic clinically relevant inaccuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T01:57:25Z)
• Every Component Counts: Rethinking the Measure of Success for Medical Semantic Segmentation in Multi-Instance Segmentation Tasks [60.80828925396154]
  We present Connected-Component(CC)-Metrics, a novel semantic segmentation evaluation protocol. We motivate this setup in the common medical scenario of semantic segmentation in a full-body PET/CT. We show how existing semantic segmentation metrics suffer from a bias towards larger connected components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T12:26:05Z)
• RaTEScore: A Metric for Radiology Report Generation [59.37561810438641]
  This paper introduces a novel, entity-aware metric, as Radiological Report (Text) Evaluation (RaTEScore) RaTEScore emphasizes crucial medical entities such as diagnostic outcomes and anatomical details, and is robust against complex medical synonyms and sensitive to negation expressions. Our evaluations demonstrate that RaTEScore aligns more closely with human preference than existing metrics, validated both on established public benchmarks and our newly proposed RaTE-Eval benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T17:49:28Z)
• Towards Reliable Medical Image Segmentation by Modeling Evidential Calibrated Uncertainty [57.023423137202485]
  Concerns regarding the reliability of medical image segmentation persist among clinicians.<n>We introduce DEviS, an easily implementable foundational model that seamlessly integrates into various medical image segmentation networks.<n>By leveraging subjective logic theory, we explicitly model probability and uncertainty for medical image segmentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-01T05:02:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.