Skip to content
Back to skills

Rexrank Eval

ASecurity

Evaluates AI models' ability to generate accurate and clinically relevant radiology reports from chest X-ray images. It assesses both linguistic quality and clinical entity extraction/alignment across diverse clinical datasets. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ReXGradient, MIMIC-CXR, IU X-ray, CheXpert Plus, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports 1/RadCliQ-v1.

  • 3 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 1 view
  • Added September 11, 2026
researchpythongoperformance

Works with

  • cli

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 11, 2026

npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill rexrank-eval --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Rexrank Eval?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Rexrank Eval
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/qhjqhj00-rexrank-eval/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-rexrank-eval)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: rexrank-eval
description: Evaluates AI models' ability to generate accurate and clinically relevant radiology reports from chest X-ray images. It assesses both linguistic quality and clinical entity extraction/alignment across diverse clinical datasets. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ReXGradient, MIMIC-CXR, IU X-ray, CheXpert Plus, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports 1/RadCliQ-v1.
metadata:
  skill_kind: dataset_eval
  source_arxiv: 2411.15122
  bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
  confidence: high
---

# rexrank-eval

> ReXrank: A Public Leaderboard for AI-Powered Radiology Report Generation — Zhang et al. (2024) (arXiv:2411.15122, 2024)

## What this evaluates

Evaluates AI models' ability to generate accurate and clinically relevant radiology reports from chest X-ray images. It assesses both linguistic quality and clinical entity extraction/alignment across diverse clinical datasets.

## Datasets

- **ReXGradient** — total 10000; splits: test (-1)
- **MIMIC-CXR** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **IU X-ray** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **CheXpert Plus** — total ?; splits: test (-1)

## Metrics

- `1/RadCliQ-v1` **(primary)** — range: other
  - Inverse of the RadCliQ-v1 clinical entity alignment score. Higher values indicate better clinical accuracy. Computed as 1 / RadCliQ_v1_score.
- `BLEU-2` — range: [0, 1]
  - Standard 2-gram BLEU score measuring n-gram overlap between generated and reference reports.
- `BertScore` — range: [0, 1]
  - F1 score computed using contextual embeddings from a BERT model to measure semantic similarity.
- `SembScore` — range: [0, 1]
  - Semantic similarity score based on sentence embeddings, measuring contextual alignment.
- `RadGraph` — range: [0, 1]
  - F1 score measuring the overlap of extracted radiological entities and relations between prediction and ground truth.
- `RaTEScore` — range: [0, 1]
  - Radiology Text Embedding score measuring semantic similarity using domain-specific embeddings.
- `GREEN` — range: [0, 1]
  - Generative Radiology Evaluation metric assessing clinical correctness and completeness of generated reports.
- `1/FineRadScore` — range: other
  - Inverse of the FineRadScore, which evaluates fine-grained clinical correctness. Higher values indicate better performance.

## Input / output format

**Input**: Chest X-ray image(s) (and optionally clinical metadata).

**Output**: Radiology report text, generated either as 'Findings' only or 'Findings + Impression'.

## Scoring recipe

```python
def compute_metrics(pred_report, gold_report):
    radcliq = compute_radcliq_v1(pred_report, gold_report)
    bleu2 = compute_bleu2(pred_report, gold_report)
    bertscore = compute_bertscore(pred_report, gold_report)
    sembscore = compute_sembscore(pred_report, gold_report)
    radgraph = compute_radgraph(pred_report, gold_report)
    rtescore = compute_rtescore(pred_report, gold_report)
    green = compute_green(pred_report, gold_report)
    fineradscore = compute_fineradscore(pred_report, gold_report)
    return {
        '1/RadCliQ-v1': 1.0 / radcliq,
        'BLEU-2': bleu2,
        'BertScore': bertscore,
        'SembScore': sembscore,
        'RadGraph': radgraph,
        'RaTEScore': rtescore,
        'GREEN': green,
        '1/FineRadScore': 1.0 / fineradscore
    }
```

## Common pitfalls

- The primary metric is inverted (1/RadCliQ-v1), so higher values indicate better performance, contrary to standard RadCliQ scores.
- Models are evaluated on two distinct tasks: 'Findings' only and 'Findings + Impression', which should not be mixed when comparing results.
- Confidence intervals (95% CI) are reported alongside mean scores, indicating statistical variance that should be considered when ranking models.

## Evidence (verbatim from paper)

> Table 1, 2, 3 and 4 summarize the performance of various medical report generation models across four different datasets: ReXGradient, MIMIC-CXR, IU X-ray and CheXpert Plus. Among these, MedVersa demonstrates superior performance, achieving the best 1/RadCliQ-v1 scores on ReXGradient (1.01 ± 0.01), MIMIC-CXR (1.10 ± 0.02), and IU X-ray (1.46 ± 0.03) on the findings section.

## Citation

```bibtex
@misc{zhang2024rexrank,
  title={ReXrank: A Public Leaderboard for AI-Powered Radiology Report Generation},
  author={Zhang et al. (2024)},
  year={2024},
  note={arXiv:2411.15122}
}
```

- arXiv: 2411.15122

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.