RaLEs: a Benchmark for Radiology Language Evaluations
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
LLaVA-Rad outperforms Med-PaLM M in ROUGE-L and F1-RadGraph, with relative improvements of 12.1% and 10.1% respectively.
“LLaVA-Rad outperforms Med-PaLM M in the most important existing lexical similarity and factual correctness metrics for radiology text (ROUGE-L and F1-RadGraph34, with a relative improvement of 12.1% and 10.1% respectively).”
From A clinically accessible small multimodal radiology model and evaluation metric for chest X-ray findings (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zambrano Chaves, J. M., Huang, S.-C., Xu, Y., Xu, H., Usuyama, N., Zhang, S., Wang, F., Xie, Y., Khademi, M., Yang, Z., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-58344-x · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Self-citationClinical Text Summarization: Adapting Large Language Models Can Outperform Human Experts
Veen, D. V., Uden, C. V., Blankemeier, L., Delbrouck, J.-B., Aali, A., Bluethgen, C., Pareek, A., Polacin, M., Reis, E. P., Seehofnerova, A., et al. (2023) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3483777/v1 · Cited by 892 · see citing works
“Recent work has adapted LLMs for various medical tasks, demonstrating great potential for medical language understanding and generation [48, 75, 79, 86, 91].”
BackgroundSelf-citation
- Authors
- Chaves, J. Z., Bhaskhar, N., Attias, M., Delbrouck, J.-B., Rubin, D., Loening, A., Langlotz, C., & Chaudhari, A.
- Venue
- Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 74429-74454
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
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
