Dissociating Answerability from Extraction in LLM Question Answering over Radiology Reports

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.

Radiology report evaluation is essential for advancing automated report generation. Natural language generation metrics have limited clinical relevance. Clinical efficacy (CE) metrics evaluate important medical findings, but focus mainly on presence and cover only a limited set of entities. Due to heavy reliance on manual annotations, it is difficult for CE metrics to extend clinical entities or attributes. In clinical practice, radiology reports serve as a medium for information transfer. Clinicians use them to perform downstream diagnostic tasks without directly inspecting images. Based on this insight, we propose ReportQA, a clinical-related and flexible radiology report evaluation framework, supporting detailed quantitative analysis of radiology report generation systems. We first collect datasets covering multiple imaging modalities and anatomical regions. We then construct knowledge trees of clinical entities and attributes with radiologist guidance, and use large language models (LLMs) to extract structured information from raw reports. Next, we generate QA pairs from predefined templates and apply quality control through self-filtering and report-based filtering. During evaluation, the report is treated as context, and an LLM acts as a judge model to answer the QA pairs. Based on the resulting QA accuracy, we introduce QAScore metric. Compared with existing metrics, QAScore shows better alignment with radiologist judgments. Experiments on multiple state-of-the-art vision-language models reveal that current report-based inference paradigms struggle to learn fine-grained clinical representations and exhibit strong negative prior biases. In contrast, question-driven inference provides a more effective alternative. For reproducibility and extensibility, we release the knowledge trees, structured reports, and QA pairs, along with the pipeline code for QA construction and evaluation.

Agentic retrieval-augmented reasoning pipelines are increasingly used to structure how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence in clinical decision support. These systems iteratively retrieve curated domain knowledge and synthesize it into structured reports before answer selection. Although such pipelines can improve performance, their impact on reliability under model variability remains unclear. In real-world deployment, heterogeneous models may align, diverge, or synchronize errors in ways not captured by accuracy. We evaluated 34 LLMs on 169 expert-curated publicly available radiology questions, comparing zero-shot inference with a radiology-specific multi-step agentic retrieval condition in which all models received identical structured evidence reports derived from curated radiology knowledge. Agentic inference reduced inter-model decision dispersion (median entropy 0.48 vs. 0.13) and increased robustness of correctness across models (mean 0.74 vs. 0.81). Majority consensus also increased overall (P<0.001). Consensus strength and robust correctness remained correlated under both strategies (\r{ho}=0.88 for zero-shot; \r{ho}=0.87 for agentic), although high agreement did not guarantee correctness. Response verbosity showed no meaningful association with correctness. Among 572 incorrect outputs, 72% were associated with moderate or high clinically assessed severity, although inter-rater agreement was low (\k{appa}=0.02). Agentic retrieval therefore was associated with more concentrated decision distributions, stronger consensus, and higher cross-model robustness of correctness. These findings suggest that evaluating agentic systems through accuracy or agreement alone may not always be sufficient, and that complementary analyses of stability, cross-model robustness, and potential clinical impact are needed to characterize reliability under model variability.