Cited by 172Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques

Optimizing the Factual Correctness of a Summary: A Study of Summarizing Radiology Reports

Open access
Zhang, Yuhao, Merck, Derek, Tsai, Emily, Manning, Christopher D., Langlotz, Curtis·2020·Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

Neural abstractive summarization models are able to generate summaries which have high overlap with human references.However, existing models are not optimized for factual correctness, a critical metric in real-world applications.In this work, we develop a general framework where we evaluate the factual correctness of a generated summary by factchecking it automatically against its reference using an information extraction module.We further propose a training strategy which optimizes a neural summarization model with a factual correctness reward via reinforcement learning.We apply the proposed method to the summarization of radiology reports, where factual correctness is a key requirement.On two separate datasets collected from hospitals, we show via both automatic and human evaluation that the proposed approach substantially improves the factual correctness and overall quality of outputs over a competitive neural summarization system, producing radiology summaries that approach the quality of humanauthored ones.Background: radiographic examination of the chest.clinical history: 80 years of age, male ... Findings: frontal radiograph of the chest demonstrates repositioning of the right atrial lead possibly into the ivc.... a right apical pneumothorax can be seen from the image.moderate right and small left pleural effusions continue.no pulmonary edema is observed.heart size is upper limits of normal. Human Summary: pneumothorax is seen. bilateral pleural effusions continue.Summary A (ROUGE-L = 0.77): no pneumothorax is observed.bilateral pleural effusions continue.Summary B (ROUGE-L = 0.44): pneumothorax is observed on radiograph.bilateral pleural effusions continue to be seen.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.458

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Generating the Impression section is related to Radiology Report Summarization, in which a system summarizes the Findings section of a report into the Impression section.

    “generating Impression is related to Radiology Report Summarization (Zhang et al., 2020) where a system has to summarize the Findings section of a report into Impression , making this choice even more relevant.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, Y., Merck, D., Tsai, E., Manning, C. D., & Langlotz, C.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2020
Pages
5108-5120
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3034863243
Cited by
171
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 15
FWCI
11.79
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Text Analysis Techniques
Keywords
factual accuracy, abstractive summarization, radiology reports, fact-checking, information extraction, reinforcement learning, medical report summarization, ROUGE evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review