cs.AIApr 2, 2026

Blinded Radiologist and LLM-Based Evaluation of LLM-Generated Japanese Translations of Chest CT Reports: Comparative Study

Authors: Yosuke Yamagishi, Atsushi Takamatsu, Yasunori Hamaguchi, Tomohiro Kikuchi, Shouhei Hanaoka, Takeharu Yoshikawa, Osamu Abe

Organizations: Division of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan · Department of Radiology, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan · Department of Radiology, Kanazawa University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Ishikawa, Japan · Department of Computational Diagnostic Radiology and Preventive Medicine, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan · 

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Background: Accurate translation of radiology reports is important for multilingual research, clinical communication, and radiology education, but the validity of LLM-based evaluation remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the educational suitability of LLM-generated Japanese translations of chest CT reports and compare radiologist assessments with LLM-as-a-judge evaluations. Methods: We analyzed 150 chest CT reports from the CT-RATE-JPN validation set. For each English report, a human-edited Japanese translation was compared with an LLM-generated translation by DeepSeek-V3.2. A board-certified radiologist and a radiology resident independently performed blinded pairwise evaluations across 4 criteria: terminology accuracy, readability, overall quality, and radiologist-style authenticity. In parallel, 3 LLM judges (DeepSeek-V3.2, Mistral Large 3, and GPT-5) evaluated the same pairs. Agreement was assessed using QWK and percentage agreement. Results: Agreement between radiologists and LLM judges was near zero (QWK=-0.04 to 0.15). Agreement between the 2 radiologists was also poor (QWK=0.01 to 0.06). Radiologist 1 rated terminology as equivalent in 59% of cases and favored the LLM translation for readability (51%) and overall quality (51%). Radiologist 2 rated readability as equivalent in 75% of cases and favored the human-edited translation for overall quality (40% vs 21%). All 3 LLM judges strongly favored the LLM translation across all criteria (70%-99%) and rated it as more radiologist-like in >93% of cases. Conclusions: LLM-generated translations were often judged natural and fluent, but the 2 radiologists differed substantially. LLM-as-a-judge showed strong preference for LLM output and negligible agreement with radiologists. For educational use of translated radiology reports, automated LLM-based evaluation alone is insufficient; expert radiologist review remains important.

More in this topic

Radiology Report Evaluation

Radiology report evaluation measures whether generated or revised reports preserve clinically important findings, relationships, and certainty.

See all 32 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Apr 3, 2026

Towards Better Aligned LLM Judges for Radiology Report Evaluation across Modalities and Anatomies

Current work on radiology report evaluation has focused primarily on LLM-based metrics for chest X-rays (CXR), leaving open whether such approaches remain robust across other modalities and anatomies, and which model and prompt configurations are best suited to serve as LLM judges. We present a comprehensive evaluation of LLM judges for radiology report evaluation across diverse model families, prompting strategies, and adaptation methods, leveraging two expert-annotated datasets that span multiple imaging modalities and anatomical regions. Specifically, we compare four existing metrics (RadFact, GREEN, FineRadScore, and CRIMSON) with our proposed metric, VERT, across open- and closed-source models of varying sizes and reasoning capabilities. Among existing metrics, GREEN proves the most robust, outperforming more recent CXR-specific approaches. VERT further improves Kendall's correlation with radiologist judgment by up to 26% over GREEN, while ensembling and lightweight fine-tuning of Qwen3-30B yield gains of up to 9.9% and 25%, respectively, of which the latter also has a latency reduction of 37.2x. A systematic error analysis further shows that, while these metrics correlate with expert ratings overall, they tend to miscount errors such as omissions. Overall, our results show that carefully selected general-purpose LLM judges provide strong radiology report evaluation across modalities, with lightweight adaptation offering complementary gains when annotated data is available.

Federica Bologna, Jean-Philippe Corbeil, Matthew Wilkens +1

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA · Microsoft Healthcare & Life Sciences, Montr´eal, QC, Canada · Cornell University, Ithaca, NY +1

LLM-as-a-JudgeRadiology Report Evaluation
AskPDF
Jun 17, 2026

Beyond Scalar Scores: Exploring LLM-based Metrics for Clinical Significance Evaluation in Radiology Reports

Reliable evaluation of generated radiology reports requires strict clinical accuracy, as omitted critical findings or mischaracterized radiographic observations can directly affect patient care. Existing metrics obscure this requirement by reducing report quality to a medically ungrounded scalar. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) possess rich medical knowledge, they likewise struggle to draw a reliable boundary between clinically significant errors and harmless variation. We study this boundary using ReEvalMed benchmark as testbed and evaluate metric-level clinical significance from detecting true clinical errors ("Discrimination") and tolerating insignificant variations ("Robustness"). Across 8 LLM evaluators under one-pass and two-pass settings, we identify a widespread discrimination bias: models effectively detect errors but also over-penalize harmless rephrasings. To mitigate this, we synthesize 4k report pairs and train lightweight interpretable metrics on Qwen3-8B and MedGemma-4B. Our trained metric sharpens the clinical significance boundary, surpassing 32B-scale medical LLMs and remaining competitive with proprietary models. Crucially, the more costly two-pass setting fails to consistently improve overall performance and mainly trades discrimination for robustness. These findings suggest one-pass trained metrics as the practical choice for cost-sensitive deployment, with two-pass inference reserved for settings where D-R balance is critical. We will release the dataset and metric.

Qingyu Lu, Ruochen Li, Liang Ding +3

Nanyang Technological University · Technical University of Munich · Alibaba +2

Clinical Language Model EvaluationLanguage Model RobustnessMedical LLMsRadiology Report Evaluation
AskPDF
Sep 23, 2026

Can Jev Judge Radiology Reports? Evaluating a System One Model for Clinical Factuality

An AI-generated radiology report can resemble a physician's report while omitting an abnormality, adding an unsupported finding, or reversing its presence. Measuring these factual differences is essential for evaluating report generators. We study Jev, a System One decision model, as a simple, low-cost judge of agreement with physician-written reference reports. Our evaluator checks whether each statement is supported by the other report and combines these judgments in both directions to capture unsupported claims and omissions. A single-question configuration reaches Kendall correlations of 0.573 on RadEvalX and 0.398 on RadEvalExpert with expert error counts, outperforming an open natural language inference judge under matched decomposition and aggregation. One support question per statement retains similar expert agreement to seven while using 43-45% fewer judgment input tokens. At the documented API price, judgments cost under three cents per hundred report pairs, excluding local decomposition. In a separate controlled-error test, Jev detects false negation with an AUROC of 0.977. Local RadMatch achieves stronger agreement on clinically significant errors in both expert datasets and on total errors in the shared RadEvalExpert subset. Finding-count and error-scope analyses show that benchmark agreement reflects report size and error definitions as well as medical error detection. These results support Jev as a practical judgment component for measuring factual differences in generated radiology reports and identify where more elaborate evaluation remains valuable.

Jiaju Huang, Hao Yang, Xinyu Ma +6

Intelligent Medical Computing Laboratory, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Macao Polytechnic University · Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands · Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

Radiology Report GenerationLLM-as-a-JudgeFactual Consistency EvaluationRadiology Report Evaluation
AskPDF