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).
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill x-pcr-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls 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 automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-x-pcr-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
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
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!