Rethinking Clinical Relevance in Chest X-ray Machine Learning: How Evaluation References Define Performance

Public datasets of Chest X-Rays (CXRs) have long been a popular benchmark for developing machine learning (ML) computer vision models in healthcare. However, the reported strong average-case performance of these models do not necessarily reflect their actual utility when used in heterogeneous clinical settings, potentially masking weaker performance in medically significant scenarios. In this work we use clinical context to provide a more holistic evaluation of models for CXR diagnosis. In particular, we use discharge summaries, recorded prior to each CXR, to derive a ``pre-CXR'' probability of each CXR label, as a proxy for existing contextual knowledge available to clinicians when interpreting CXRs. We use this measure to probe model performance along two dimensions: First, using a stratified analysis, we show that models tend to have lower performance (as measured by AUROC and other metrics) among individuals with higher pre-CXR probability. Second, by controlling for pre-CXR probability via matching and re-weighting, we demonstrate that performance degrades when the correlation is broken between prior context and the current CXR label, suggesting that model performance is highly sensitive to the underlying distribution of clinical context. Specifically, cases with high pre-test probabilities present a fundamentally more difficult visual classification task, highlighting a gap in clinical utility when models are applied to high-risk cohorts.

Radiologists follow heterogeneous reporting practices. Two radiologists examining the same image and identifying the same clinical findings might nevertheless compose superficially distinct reports, varying in terminology, shorthand, formatting, and level of detail. These variations in reporting norms represent an under-appreciated obstacle in efforts to evaluate AI-based radiology report generation (RRG) models, where machine-generated reports are typically assessed based on their concordance with human-generated references. In this paper, we quantify the sensitivity of established evaluation metrics to variations in reporting practices, revealing impacts large enough to alter the rankings of models. We introduce a radiologist-informed taxonomy of variations in radiology reporting practice and a method (ReRef) that rewrites reference reports along the axes of our taxonomy while preserving clinical interpretation. For instance, when comparing the performance of nine RRG models on MIMIC-CXR using RadCliQ-v1, condensing the discussion of normal findings in the reference reports causes Libra to drop from first to second place while CheXOne rises from third to first. Our results suggest that many current metrics fail to decouple clinical interpretation from conformity to reporting practices and that choosing the ``right'' references that accurately reflect the desired reporting practices can be important in practice. To support future research, we release MIMIC-CXR-Ext-ReRef, a radiologist-validated dataset of 120 (original, alternative) reference report pairs derived from MIMIC-CXR.

Vision-language models return structured chest-radiograph findings through interfaces exposing no confidence score, so a receiving institution cannot read off how far to trust an individual judgment. Whether agreement with an institution's reference standard transfers across sites, findings, prediction directions and question formats is largely unmeasured. We evaluated three generative vision-language models on three institutional chest-radiograph corpora and six findings under two elicitation protocols, comprising more than 345,000 finding-level predictions, and estimated finding-by-direction reference agreement at a receiving institution from a small budget of local labels. Estimation strategies were then stress-tested under repeated strict institution-held-out evaluation. Under evaluation excluding the receiving institution from development entirely, adaptive selection among the seven estimators that design admits did not improve on simple fixed alternatives: it achieved a mean Brier score of 0.1083, against 0.0853 for always using a Beta-Binomial empirical-Bayes estimator and 0.0855 for a target-only logistic model. Those two differ by 0.0003, less than this family's own sensitivity to a change of solver version, and each leads in about half the settings, so no default can be recommended. Their advantage over estimators pooling across institutions was concentrated at one site and not confirmatory once clustered by institution, and a plug-in empirical-Bayes posterior-predictive count interval at a nominal 95% level covered 87.0%, less at the hardest institution. Reference agreement therefore has to be re-evaluated per site and per interface; these results concern agreement with institutional labels, not clinical correctness.