2022/10/21 by Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Pierre Chambon, Delbrouck, Jean-Benoit +10 · 19 citations
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Computer Science · Medicine · #Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) #Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies #Computation and Language (cs.CL) #FOS: Computer and information sciences #Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging #Topic Modeling #cs.AI #cs.CL
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.12186
Findings of EMNLP 2022
arxiv created 2022/10/21 · openalex publication_date 2022/10/21 · arxiv updated 2022/10/25 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Neural image-to-text radiology report generation systems offer the potential to improve radiology reporting by reducing the repetitive process of report drafting and identifying possible medical errors. These systems have achieved promising performance as measured by widely used NLG metrics such as BLEU and CIDEr. However, the current systems face important limitations. First, they present an increased complexity in architecture that offers only marginal improvements on NLG metrics. Secondly, these systems that achieve high performance on these metrics are not always factually complete or consistent due to both inadequate training and evaluation. Recent studies have shown the systems can be substantially improved by using new methods encouraging 1) the generation of domain entities consistent with the reference and 2) describing these entities in inferentially consistent ways. So far, these methods rely on weakly-supervised approaches (rule-based) and named entity recognition systems that are not specific to the chest X-ray domain. To overcome this limitation, we propose a new method, the RadGraph reward, to further improve the factual completeness and correctness of generated radiology reports. More precisely, we leverage the RadGraph dataset containing annotated chest X-ray reports with entities and relations between entities. On two open radiology report datasets, our system substantially improves the scores up to 14.2% and 25.3% on metrics evaluating the factual correctness and completeness of reports.