The Slop Paradox: How Synthetic Standardization Erodes Clinical Uncertainty and Cross-Modal Alignment in AI-Rewritten Radiology Reports

Large language models (LLMs) can generate or synthesize clinical text for a wide range of applications, from improving clinical documentation to augmenting clinical text analytics. Yet evaluations typically focus on a narrow aspect -- such as similarity or utility comparisons -- even though these aspects are complementary and best viewed in parallel. In this study, we aim to conduct a systematic evaluation of LLM-generated clinical text, which includes intrinsic, extrinsic, and factuality evaluations of synthetic clinical notes rephrased from MIMIC databases at million-note scale. Our analysis demonstrates that synthetic notes preserve core clinical information and predictive utility for coarse-grained tasks despite substantial linguistic changes, but lose fine-grained details for task like ICD coding. We show this loss of detail can be substantially mitigated by rephrasing notes by chunks rather than by the whole note, but at the cost of reduced factual precision under incomplete context. Through fact-checking and error analysis, we further find that synthesis errors are dominated by misinterpretation of clinical context, alongside temporal confusion, measurement errors, and fabricated claims. Finally, we show that the synthetic notes -- despite their task-agnostic nature -- can effectively augment task-specific training for rare ICD codes.

Imaging demand is growing faster than the radiology workforce can expand, and reporting backlogs cannot be resolved through training and recruitment alone. The most direct opportunity is reducing the time and effort radiologists spend producing reports, a task that requires interpreting images, integrating clinical history and prior studies, and drafting structured findings. We present Harrison.Rad 1.5 (HR1.5), a radiology-specific multimodal large language model that accepts interleaved text and visual inputs and generates structured and unstructured text across plain-film radiology, spanning computed radiography, chest, musculoskeletal, abdominal, spine, and pelvic x-rays, and mammography. HR1.5 is trained through a three-stage pipeline: domain adaptation of a base language model on radiology reports, contrastive vision-encoder training with curriculum-based hard negatives on ~6 million image-report instances, and visual-question-answering fine-tuning on multi-turn conversations. We evaluate it with a Findings-Diagnosis scoring framework that extends RadGraph-XL entity extraction with ontology-based synonym matching and polarity-contradiction detection, benchmarked on RadBench, a simulated FRCR 2B Short Case examination scored against Angoff-method thresholds, ReXGradient, and internal multi-modality datasets. HR1.5 is the only system evaluated to meet the simulated FRCR passing standard and achieves the highest accuracy on closed-format clinical questions, across anatomical regions, on internal multi-body-part and mammography reporting, and on the primary clinically-aligned score for public chest reporting. We further examine explainability and model behaviour, including question-sensitive Grad-CAM heatmaps, attention analysis, and confidence estimation, to support responsible future evaluation toward clinical use, and a framework for clinically grounded assessment of report quality.

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.