Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Precision Recall Controllable Radiology Report Generation via Hybrid Natural Language and Clinical Reward Learning

Ling Chen, Ruinan Jin, Jun Luo, Hanliang Chen, Quirin Strotzer, Rongkai Yan, Yuan Xue, Luciano Prevedello, Dufan Wu · Jun 19, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Automated radiology report generation (RRG) has gained increasing attention because it can reduce the heavy workload of clinical report writing. However, most existing methods mainly optimize for natural language generation (NLG) metrics that focus on language fluency, while providing little control over clinically important factors such as precision and recall. As consequence, generated reports may be fluent but not well aligned with different clinical needs. To address this challenge, we propose a reinforcement learning framework for precision recall controllable RRG, where a control parameter explicitly adjusts the trade-off between clinical precision and recall during inference. This design allows the model to flexibly generate reports according to different clinical requirements. To ensure clinical correctness, we introduce a clinical reward into the training objective, which helps improve clinical efficacy (CE) beyond standard language-based optimization. In addition, we apply a group-relative training strategy that normalizes rewards within each training group, reducing reward variance and improving training stability. Extensive experiments on the MIMIC-CXR dataset show that our method consistently outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in both NLG and CE evaluation metrics, while providing reliable control over the CE precision recall trade-off.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

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

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

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

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Automated radiology report generation (RRG) has gained increasing attention because it can reduce the heavy workload of clinical report writing."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Automated radiology report generation (RRG) has gained increasing attention because it can reduce the heavy workload of clinical report writing."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Automated radiology report generation (RRG) has gained increasing attention because it can reduce the heavy workload of clinical report writing."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Automated radiology report generation (RRG) has gained increasing attention because it can reduce the heavy workload of clinical report writing."

Reported Metrics

partial

Precision, Recall

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"However, most existing methods mainly optimize for natural language generation (NLG) metrics that focus on language fluency, while providing little control over clinically important factors such as precision and recall."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Medicine

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

precisionrecall

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Automated radiology report generation (RRG) has gained increasing attention because it can reduce the heavy workload of clinical report writing.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Automated radiology report generation (RRG) has gained increasing attention because it can reduce the heavy workload of clinical report writing.
  • However, most existing methods mainly optimize for natural language generation (NLG) metrics that focus on language fluency, while providing little control over clinically important factors such as precision and recall.
  • As consequence, generated reports may be fluent but not well aligned with different clinical needs.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To address this challenge, we propose a reinforcement learning framework for precision recall controllable RRG, where a control parameter explicitly adjusts the trade-off between clinical precision and recall during inference.
  • To ensure clinical correctness, we introduce a clinical reward into the training objective, which helps improve clinical efficacy (CE) beyond standard language-based optimization.
  • Extensive experiments on the MIMIC-CXR dataset show that our method consistently outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in both NLG and CE evaluation metrics, while providing reliable control over the CE precision recall trade-off.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Extensive experiments on the MIMIC-CXR dataset show that our method consistently outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in both NLG and CE evaluation metrics, while providing reliable control over the CE precision recall trade-off.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: precision, recall

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.