Modeling Clinical Uncertainty in Radiology Reports: from Explicit Uncertainty Markers to Implicit Reasoning Pathways

Paloma Rabaey, Jong Hak Moon, Jung-Oh Lee, Min Gwan Kim, Hangyul Yoon, Thomas Demeester, Edward Choi · Nov 6, 2025 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Feb 27, 2026, 5:15 PM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Mar 8, 2026, 8:44 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Runtime deterministic fallback

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

Radiology reports are invaluable for clinical decision-making and hold great potential for automated analysis when structured into machine-readable formats. These reports often contain uncertainty, which we categorize into two distinct types: (i) Explicit uncertainty reflects doubt about the presence or absence of findings, conveyed through hedging phrases. These vary in meaning depending on the context, making rule-based systems insufficient to quantify the level of uncertainty for specific findings; (ii) Implicit uncertainty arises when radiologists omit parts of their reasoning, recording only key findings or diagnoses. Here, it is often unclear whether omitted findings are truly absent or simply unmentioned for brevity. We address these challenges with a two-part framework. We quantify explicit uncertainty by creating an expert-validated, LLM-based reference ranking of common hedging phrases, and mapping each finding to a probability value based on this reference. In addition, we model implicit uncertainty through an expansion framework that systematically adds characteristic sub-findings derived from expert-defined diagnostic pathways for 14 common diagnoses. Using these methods, we release Lunguage++, an expanded, uncertainty-aware version of the Lunguage benchmark of fine-grained structured radiology reports. This enriched resource enables uncertainty-aware image classification, faithful diagnostic reasoning, and new investigations into the clinical impact of diagnostic uncertainty.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.