Cited by 151Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies

Improving Factual Completeness and Consistency of Image-to-Text Radiology Report Generation

Open access
Miura, Yasuhide, Zhang, Yuhao, Tsai, Emily, Langlotz, Curtis, Jurafsky, Dan·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

Abstract

Yasuhide Miura, Yuhao Zhang, Emily Tsai, Curtis Langlotz, Dan Jurafsky. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 2021.

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/v1/2021.naacl-main.416

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • The RGER model reports the best scores on NLG metrics as well as improvements of +7.59% on factENT and +14.2% on factENTNLI over Miura et al. (2021).

    “This model also reports the best scores on the NLG metrics as well as improvements of +7.59% on factENT and +14.2% on factENTNLI over Miura et al. (2021).”

    From Improving the Factual Correctness of Radiology Report Generation with Semantic Rewards (2022) · cites this paper as Miura et al., 2021

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • New factually-oriented methods rely on weakly-supervised approaches (rule-based) to construct NLI models for radiology reports and biomedical named entity recognition systems that are not specific to chest X-rays.

    “So far, these new methods rely on weakly-supervised approaches (rule-based) to construct NLI models for radiology reports and biomedical named entity recognition systems (Zhang et al., 2021) that are not specific to chest X-rays.”

    From Improving the Factual Correctness of Radiology Report Generation with Semantic Rewards (2022) · cites this paper as Miura et al., 2021

    Section 3.3 says the authors use weakly supervised rules to train a radiology-report NLI model and use Stanza’s clinical models for named entity recognition. Section 3.2.1 likewise identifies Stanza as the recognizer used for radiology reports. The paper does not establish the broader claim that new factually oriented methods generally rely on these approaches, or explicitly state that the recognizer is not specific to chest X-rays. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Rewards based solely on entities or on entities and relations cannot be optimized without counter-effects occurring.

    “rewards based solely on entities (Miura et al., 2021) or entities and relations cannot be optimized without counter-effects happening.”

    From Improving the Factual Correctness of Radiology Report Generation with Semantic Rewards (2022) · cites this paper as Miura et al., 2021

    The Generated Report passage and §3.2.2 say that adding NLI controls overestimation of disease when optimizing the entity-match reward, supporting a counter-effect for entity-based optimization. They do not establish the categorical claim that such rewards cannot be optimized without counter-effects. The citation is attached to entity-based rewards, not the separate reference to entities and relations. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Existing image-to-text radiology report generation systems are inadequate in factual completeness and consistency.

    “Miura et al. (2021) have shown that existing systems are inadequate in factual completeness and consistency”
  • On MIMIC-CXR, the NLL baseline is up 2.3% on factENT and up 8.0% on factENTNLI compared to Miura et al. (2021).

    “On MIMIC-CXR, our baseline is up 2.3% on factENT and up 8.0% on factENTNLI compared to Miura et al. (2021).”

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

3 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miura, Y., Zhang, Y., Tsai, E., Langlotz, C., & Jurafsky, D.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
Published
2021
Pages
5288-5304
OpenAlex
W3166845084
Cited by
149
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 1
FWCI
7.59
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Keywords
image-to-text generation, radiology report generation, factual consistency, medical report summarization

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