Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Comparative Experimentation of Accuracy Metrics in Automated Medical Reporting: The Case of Otitis Consultations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.13273 v2 pith:DQRXDCVP submitted 2023-11-22 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords medicalaccuracymetricsreportsgeneratedbeenconsultationsreporting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be used to automatically generate medical reports based on transcripts of medical consultations. The aim is to reduce the administrative burden that healthcare professionals face. The accuracy of the generated reports needs to be established to ensure their correctness and usefulness. There are several metrics for measuring the accuracy of AI generated reports, but little work has been done towards the application of these metrics in medical reporting. A comparative experimentation of 10 accuracy metrics has been performed on AI generated medical reports against their corresponding General Practitioner's (GP) medical reports concerning Otitis consultations. The number of missing, incorrect, and additional statements of the generated reports have been correlated with the metric scores. In addition, we introduce and define a Composite Accuracy Score which produces a single score for comparing the metrics within the field of automated medical reporting. Findings show that based on the correlation study and the Composite Accuracy Score, the ROUGE-L and Word Mover's Distance metrics are the preferred metrics, which is not in line with previous work. These findings help determine the accuracy of an AI generated medical report, which aids the development of systems that generate medical reports for GPs to reduce the administrative burden.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ClinBench-HPB: A Clinical Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Diseases

    cs.CY 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark covering all ICD-10 HPB disease categories shows that LLMs, including specialized medical models, perform far worse on real clinical cases than on exam-style questions.

Pith tools