跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.10277 · v1

Adversarial Evaluation of Large Language Models for Patient-Friendly Radiology Report Summarization

首次提交 2026-11-07 06:23
版本更新 2026-11-07 06:23
雷达观测 2026-11-10 10:11
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Purpose: To develop and validate a scalable adversarial evaluation framework for assessing the robustness of large language models (LLMs) that generate patient-friendly summaries of radiology reports. Methods: We introduced a clinically grounded adversarial framework that uses controlled term substitutions and impression removals across intensity levels. Using a radiologist-validated adversarial dictionary, we generated adversarial variants of CT and MRI reports. Six LLMs summarized original and adversarial impressions using 2 prompt styles, yielding 18,000 evaluation pairs. Robustness was evaluated with an automated LLM-as-a-judge framework scoring factual faithfulness, sensitivity to adversarial edits, certainty fidelity, and hallucination rate. Failure mode analysis quantified vulnerabilities in incorporating clinical modifiers. Agreement with two radiologists was assessed on 105 cases. Results: GPT-5-mini achieved the highest factual faithfulness and certainty fidelity under both adversarial edits. Under term substitution, hallucinations occurred in 28.1-30.1% of GPT-5-mini summaries, compared with 35.3-36.4% for Claude Sonnet 4.5 and 41.4-41.9% for MedGemma. Impression-removal edits were handled more robustly than term substitutions. Even for the highest-scoring summarizer, substitutions of anatomical terms were not reflected in 23.7% of summaries, diagnostic certainty in 22.3%, and descriptor terms (e.g., "substantial") in 21.2%. Judge-radiologist agreement (macro-F1: 0.55-0.56) was comparable to inter-radiologist agreement (0.53). Conclusions: Adversarial evaluation exposes clinically meaningful failure modes, including missed anatomical modifiers, altered diagnostic certainty, and omitted severity descriptors.

作者备注:This work has been submitted to Radiology: Artificial Intelligence for possible publication. Copyright may be transferred without notice, after which this version may no longer be accessible

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-07 06:23 · 最新观测版本

Adversarial Evaluation of Large Language Models for Patient-Friendly Radiology Report Summarization

Purpose: To develop and validate a scalable adversarial evaluation framework for assessing the robustness of large language models (LLMs) that generate patient-friendly summaries of radiology reports. Methods: We introduced a clinically grounded adversarial framework that uses controlled term substitutions and impression removals across intensity levels. Using a radiologist-validated adversarial dictionary, we generated adversarial variants of CT and MRI reports. Six LLMs summarized original and adversarial impressions using 2 prompt styles, yielding 18,000 evaluation pairs. Robustness was evaluated with an automated LLM-as-a-judge framework scoring factual faithfulness, sensitivity to adversarial edits, certainty fidelity, and hallucination rate. Failure mode analysis quantified vulnerabilities in incorporating clinical modifiers. Agreement with two radiologists was assessed on 105 cases. Results: GPT-5-mini achieved the highest factual faithfulness and certainty fidelity under both adversarial edits. Under term substitution, hallucinations occurred in 28.1-30.1% of GPT-5-mini summaries, compared with 35.3-36.4% for Claude Sonnet 4.5 and 41.4-41.9% for MedGemma. Impression-removal edits were handled more robustly than term substitutions. Even for the highest-scoring summarizer, substitutions of anatomical terms were not reflected in 23.7% of summaries, diagnostic certainty in 22.3%, and descriptor terms (e.g., "substantial") in 21.2%. Judge-radiologist agreement (macro-F1: 0.55-0.56) was comparable to inter-radiologist agreement (0.53). Conclusions: Adversarial evaluation exposes clinically meaningful failure modes, including missed anatomical modifiers, altered diagnostic certainty, and omitted severity descriptors.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗