PreprintCited by 17Multimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in Healthcare

Improving Radiology Report Generation Systems by Removing Hallucinated References to Non-existent Priors

Open access
Ramesh, Vignav, Chi, Nathan Andrew, Rajpurkar, Pranav·2022·arXiv

Abstract

Current deep learning models trained to generate radiology reports from chest radiographs are capable of producing clinically accurate, clear, and actionable text that can advance patient care. However, such systems all succumb to the same problem: making hallucinated references to non-existent prior reports. Such hallucinations occur because these models are trained on datasets of real-world patient reports that inherently refer to priors. To this end, we propose two methods to remove references to priors in radiology reports: (1) a GPT-3-based few-shot approach to rewrite medical reports without references to priors; and (2) a BioBERT-based token classification approach to directly remove words referring to priors. We use the aforementioned approaches to modify MIMIC-CXR, a publicly available dataset of chest X-rays and their associated free-text radiology reports; we then retrain CXR-RePaiR, a radiology report generation system, on the adapted MIMIC-CXR dataset. We find that our re-trained model--which we call CXR-ReDonE--outperforms previous report generation methods on clinical metrics, achieving an average BERTScore of 0.2351 (2.57% absolute improvement). We expect our approach to be broadly valuable in enabling current radiology report generation systems to be more directly integrated into clinical pipelines.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2210.06340

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 paper's qualitative evaluation approach differs from most existing works that primarily ask experts to rate overall report quality via a Likert scale, provide total error counts/categorisation, or engage in comparison rankings.

    “By inviting a domain expert to review and adapt individual phrase outputs, our approach to qualitative evaluation of report generation differs from most existing works that primarily ask experts to rate overall report quality via a (Likert-) scale; 59 provide total error counts/ categorisation; 48,60 or engage in comparison rankings across different report candidates.61”

    From MAIRA-2: Grounded Radiology Report Generation (2024) · cites this paper as [59]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ramesh, V., Chi, N. A., & Rajpurkar, P.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4320858981
Cited by
17
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
radiology report generation, chest radiograph, MIMIC-CXR, medical report generation

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