Evaluates multi-modal large language models on progressive clinical reasoning in ophthalmic diagnosis. It tests the model's ability to perform a six-stage diagnostic chain (from image quality assessment to clinical decision-making) while integrating cross-modality imaging data and calibrating its uncertainty. Use when the user wants to benchmark on X-PCR, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Stage-Wise Accuracy (SWA).
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of X Pcr Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-x-pcr-eval)
---
name: x-pcr-eval
description: Evaluates multi-modal large language models on progressive clinical reasoning in ophthalmic diagnosis. It tests the model's ability to perform a six-stage diagnostic chain (from image quality assessment to clinical decision-making) while integrating cross-modality imaging data and calibrating its uncertainty. Use when the user wants to benchmark on X-PCR, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Stage-Wise Accuracy (SWA).
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2604.20350
bibtex_key: wang2026xpcr
confidence: high
---
# x-pcr-eval
> X-PCR: A Benchmark for Cross-modality Progressive Clinical Reasoning in Ophthalmic Diagnosis — Gui Wang et al. (arXiv:2604.20350, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates multi-modal large language models on progressive clinical reasoning in ophthalmic diagnosis. It tests the model's ability to perform a six-stage diagnostic chain (from image quality assessment to clinical decision-making) while integrating cross-modality imaging data and calibrating its uncertainty.
## Datasets
- **X-PCR** — total 177868; splits: test (177868); repo https://github.com/CVI-SZU/X-PCR
## Metrics
- `Stage-Wise Accuracy (SWA)` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Percentage of correct answers at each of the six reasoning stages (IQA, AL, LC, DD, SG, CD).
- `Chain Completion Rate (CCR)` — range: percent
- Percentage of instances where the model correctly answers all six stages in the reasoning chain.
- `Expertise-Stratified Accuracy (ESA)` — range: percent
- Accuracy computed separately for three clinical difficulty tiers: Resident (R), Attending (A), and Specialist (S).
- `Uncertainty-Aware Score (UAS)` — range: other
- Weighted score aggregating confidence-accuracy categories (CC, CU, IU, IC) with difficulty and clinical impact weights to reward calibrated confidence and penalize overconfident errors.
- `Expected Calibration Error (ECE)` — range: other
- Bin-wise discrepancy between the model's self-reported confidence and its empirical accuracy across confidence bins.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Multi-modal ophthalmic images (up to 6 modalities: EP, CFP, FFA, ICGA, OCT, RetCam) paired with clinical vignettes and stage-specific multiple-choice questions.
**Output**: Multiple-choice answer selection, self-reported confidence score [0,1], and step-by-step reasoning for each of the six clinical stages.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, gold, confidences, difficulties):
swa = {s: sum(p==g for p,g in zip(preds[s], gold[s]))/len(gold[s]) for s in stages}
ccr = sum(all(p==g for p,g in zip(preds[s], gold[s])) for _ in instances)/len(instances)
esa = {t: sum(p==g for p,g,d in zip(preds,gold,diff) if d==t)/count(t) for t in tiers}
uas = sum(weight(cat(p,g,c))*impact(d) for p,g,c,d in zip(preds,gold,conf,diff))
ece = sum(bin_size*abs(bin_acc-bin_conf) for bin in bins)
return swa, ccr, esa, uas, ece
```
## Common pitfalls
- Evaluating stages in isolation ignores the benchmark's core dependency-aware design, masking error propagation across the diagnostic chain.
- Reporting only standard accuracy overlooks the uncertainty calibration component; models frequently exhibit Incorrect Confident (IC) behavior, which heavily penalizes UAS.
- Failing to stratify results by difficulty tier (R/A/S) and clinical impact weights violates the expertise-aware assessment protocol.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We define the following evaluation metrics: 1) Stage-Wise Accuracy (SWA) per reasoning stage; 2) Chain Completion Rate (CCR) for fully correct six-stage chains; 3) Expertise-Stratified Accuracy (ESA) within each difficulty tier. ... Model responses include self-reported confidence (normalized to $[0,1]$), categorized as Correct Confident (CC), Correct Uncertain (CU), Incorrect Uncertain (IU), or Incorrect Confident (IC). Each category receives a base score, aggregated with difficulty–impact weights into a weighted Uncertainty-Aware Score (UAS), rewarding calibrated confidence and penalizing overconfident errors. We further report Expected Calibration Error (ECE)...
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{wang2026xpcr,
title={X-PCR: A Benchmark for Cross-modality Progressive Clinical Reasoning in Ophthalmic Diagnosis},
author={Gui Wang et al.},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2604.20350}
}
```
- arXiv: 2604.20350