Evaluates vision-language foundation models on chest X-ray interpretation across two axes: image perception (view classification, disease identification/classification, VQA, reasoning) and textual understanding (findings generation, summarization). It probes clinical reasoning, visual grounding, and medical text generation capabilities. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MIMIC-CXR, CheXpert, SIIM, RSNA, OpenI, SLAKE, Rad-Restruct, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill chexbench-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Chexbench Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-chexbench-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: chexbench-eval
description: Evaluates vision-language foundation models on chest X-ray interpretation across two axes: image perception (view classification, disease identification/classification, VQA, reasoning) and textual understanding (findings generation, summarization). It probes clinical reasoning, visual grounding, and medical text generation capabilities. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MIMIC-CXR, CheXpert, SIIM, RSNA, OpenI, SLAKE, Rad-Restruct, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2401.12208
bibtex_key: chen2024chexagent
confidence: high
---
# chexbench-eval
> A Vision-Language Foundation Model to Enhance Efficiency of Chest X-ray Interpretation — Chen et al. (2024) (arXiv:2401.12208, 2024)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates vision-language foundation models on chest X-ray interpretation across two axes: image perception (view classification, disease identification/classification, VQA, reasoning) and textual understanding (findings generation, summarization). It probes clinical reasoning, visual grounding, and medical text generation capabilities.
## Datasets
- **MIMIC-CXR** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **CheXpert** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **SIIM** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **RSNA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **OpenI** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **SLAKE** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Rad-Restruct** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Fraction of correctly predicted options in multiple-choice tasks. Computed as correct predictions divided by total predictions.
- `ROUGE-L` — range: [0, 1]
- Longest common subsequence-based recall/precision/f1 score for text generation tasks.
- `CheXbert-Score` — range: [0, 1]
- Automated metric measuring factual correctness of generated radiology findings against reference reports using a clinical NLP model.
- `RadGraph-Score` — range: [0, 1]
- Automated metric evaluating clinical entity and relation extraction accuracy in generated reports.
## Input / output format
**Input**: A chest X-ray image paired with a text prompt (multiple-choice question with options, or an instruction to generate/summarize findings).
**Output**: For perception tasks: the selected multiple-choice option. For generation tasks: free-text radiology findings or a concise summary statement.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_accuracy(predictions, gold_labels):
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold_labels) if p == g)
return correct / len(predictions)
def compute_generation_metrics(predictions, references):
# Uses standard implementations for ROUGE-L, CheXbert-Score, RadGraph-Score
rouge_l = rouge_l_score(predictions, references)
chexbert = chexbert_score(predictions, references)
radgraph = radgraph_score(predictions, references)
return rouge_l, chexbert, radgraph
```
## Common pitfalls
- Data leakage: Several baseline models (e.g., XrayGPT, RadFM) were fine-tuned on datasets included in the benchmark (OpenI, SLAKE), potentially inflating their reported accuracy.
- Log-likelihood selection: The benchmark avoids open-ended generation evaluation for perception tasks by scoring log-likelihoods of multiple-choice options, which may not capture true clinical reasoning or hallucination rates.
- Hard negatives: The image-text reasoning task uses carefully crafted hard negatives that are exceptionally difficult for all evaluated models, making performance gaps small and potentially masking model limitations.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> In line with prior benchmarks designed for general domain FMs, we use a multiple-choice format, where an image and a question are posed to the FM and multiple options are considered. Since open-ended, free-text outputs from FMs are challenging to evaluate, we instead compute log-likelihood scores associated with each option; the option with the highest score is then selected as the response. For each task, we report accuracy.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{chen2024chexagent,
title={A Vision-Language Foundation Model to Enhance Efficiency of Chest X-ray Interpretation},
author={Chen et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2401.12208}
}
```
- arXiv: 2401.12208
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!