MIRROR: Multimodal Intelligent Radiology Reasoning and Observation Reporter

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.

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.

As AI systems are increasingly used to draft radiology reports, reliably evaluating their clinical quality remains a critical challenge. Large language model (LLM)-based metrics are now the best-correlated with radiologist judgment, yet they output a single opaque score that neither a clinician nor a model builder can easily interpret or audit. We introduce RadMatch, a multi-stage, LLM-based metric that decomposes report comparison into a structured finding-level matching with significance-aware scoring and error characterization across seven clinical attribute dimensions (status, location, severity, morphology, certainty, longitudinal comparison, and measurement). The main score is the actionable-error count, both interpretable and auditable. Candidate findings are graded correct, partial, or incorrect, and unmatched findings are counted as missed or hallucinated. Triage and actionable safety recall/precision and per-subset views add complementary, deployment-oriented lenses. Across two expert benchmarks, RadMatch is the most clinically aligned metric, matching inter-radiologist agreement on ReXVal and more than doubling the best prior metric on the harder RadEvalExpert. Relying only on few-shot prompting, it is designed to extend to other modalities and anatomies. We will release RadMatch as open-source code with an interactive dashboard for inspecting results.