跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+2471新增论文
+2025其中 AI 相关
+163已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-11 03:54 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-10 15:22各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-10 04:17 — 2026-11-11 04:17(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-11 03:54最近发现新增版本:2026-11-10 15:22库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-10 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

20,643 已收录论文17,531 AI 相关5,643 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-11 03:53(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.10288

A Clinical Evaluation of Conformal Prediction for Chest Radiograph Report Generation

Nikolaos Kontogeorgis, Pascal Krezer, Klaus-Rudolf Kladny, Arne Estler, Christian F. Baumgartner, Lisa Koch, Saif Afat, Michael Muehlebach

原文摘要

While multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have improved automated radiology report generation, they remain prone to hallucinations, necessitating clinically meaningful risk-control methods. Conformal prediction (CP) provides statistical guarantees, yet existing CP approaches rely on uncalibrated automated extractors and fail to account for the clinical relevance of errors. We introduce clinical admissibility criteria (CLARITY), a framework for evaluating radiology reports that explicitly distinguishes clinically consequential errors from minor deviations. To eliminate reliance on automatic judges, we collected radiologist annotations of MLLM-generated reports using CLARITY. By benchmarking CP strategies and automatic evaluation metrics against these expert annotations, we demonstrate that commonly used admissibility proxies systematically fail to detect clinically relevant errors. Our findings reveal that automated admissibility judgments are largely decoupled from true clinical admissibility.

cs.LG