Unmentioned Checklist Findings Change How Reinforcement Learning Appears to Improve Chest Radiograph Report Checking

arXiv:2610.05425 · cs.CV, cs.CL, cs.LG · Submitted 2026-10-04 · Read on arXiv

cs.CV, cs.CL, cs.LG

Submitted: 2026-10-04

Updated: 2026-10-04

Comments: 40 pages, 7 figures, 17 tables (main text and references pp. 1-19; Supplementary Information as an appendix, pp. 20-40). Submitted to npj Digital Medicine. Code: https://github.com/ali-vosoughi/VerifyGRPO-Rad

Code: https://github.com/ali-vosoughi/VerifyGRPO-Rad

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The gist: Automated checks of radiology reports may rely on AI-generated checklists that leave findings unmentioned.

Terminology

Abstract

Automated checks of radiology reports may rely on AI-generated checklists that leave findings unmentioned. We used reinforcement learning to train a vision-language model to fill in a 12-finding checklist from a chest radiograph without seeing the sentence under test; a separate checking model judged the sentence from the checklist. On held-out patients, a rule-based check and an independent medical checker, neither used in training, measured discrimination gains (Youden index) of 12.6% and 11.8%; only the rule-based check met the prespecified false-alarm criterion. Switching to the training format, which fixes finding order and enters unmentioned findings as absent, raised the training checker's measured gain and lowered the independent checker's, a prespecified comparison that yielded 6.2% (95% interval 2.0% to 10.5%) and, post hoc on held-out patients, 7.7%. Across 8 checking models, acceptance of a label-consistent negative statement about an unmentioned finding ranged from 1.0% to 97.0%. Labels were report-derived, not radiologist-adjudicated.

Sources

Related papers