QureRadEmbed: Structuring Radiological Similarity through Attribute and Reasoning Supervision

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.

Radiology report evaluation must distinguish clinical compatibility from surface similarity, because negation, laterality, or normal-abnormal polarity can reverse a finding. We propose RadSEM (Radiology Sentence-Level Evaluation Metric), a constrained LLM-assisted metric for reference-based evaluation of radiology Findings. RadSEM rewrites reference and generated reports into ordered atomic finding sentences, each expressing one site-finding proposition. It then performs contradiction-constrained many-to-many matching: incompatible pairs such as "effusion" and "no effusion" receive no credit, while compatible granularity differences can receive partial credit. A deterministic stage weights pairs by part-whole and abnormal-detail relationships, counts unmatched findings, and produces an abnormal-focused weighted F1 score. Thus, the LLM supports structured rewriting and local alignment rather than acting as an opaque judge. We evaluate RadSEM with SSREE, a controlled monotonicity stress test built from 2,448 de-identified reports expanded into five graded corruption levels. RadSEM achieves Kendall tau_b of 0.957, all-pairs concordance of 97.8%, adjacent concordance of 95.0%, and strict five-level ordering for 81.9% of reports, outperforming radiology-specific and general text metrics while avoiding the failure in which polarity-inverted reports regain lexical overlap. On the same SSREE set, RadSEM outperforms the Ref-anchored RadSEM-Alt policy, improving adjacent concordance from 90.7% to 95.0% and strict ordering from 67.2% to 81.9%. On a 599-triplet synonym/antonym subset, RadSEM prefers synonyms in 597 cases (99.67%). These results suggest that explicit finding units, contradiction-aware matching, and abnormal-focused deterministic scoring make report scoring more interpretable and sensitive to clinically meaningful errors. Code is available at https://github.com/jdh-algo/RadSEM.

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.