Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces PathReportEval, a standardized benchmark and evaluation framework for pathology report generation from whole-slide images, addressing the inconsistencies in existing methodologies. By implementing the Clinical Report Quality Score (CRQS), which assesses clinical correctness through structured clinical attributes, the study reveals that traditional natural language generation metrics often misrepresent model performance. The findings highlight significant disparities in report quality that are overlooked by conventional metrics, thereby establishing a reproducible foundation for future research in this domain.
Conventional language metrics overestimate report quality, while the new Clinical Report Quality Score uncovers clinically significant differences in pathology report generation.
Pathology report generation from whole-slide images (WSIs) is a rapidly growing multimodal learning problem, yet progress is difficult to measure because existing studies use heterogeneous datasets, model settings, visual encoders, and evaluation protocols. Moreover, commonly used natural language generation metrics, including BLEU, ROUGE, and METEOR, primarily reward lexical similarity and often fail to detect clinically consequential errors such as omitted diagnoses, hallucinated findings, or discordant tumor attributes. We present a standardized benchmark and evaluation framework for pathology report generation. The benchmark evaluates four representative methods across three datasets (TCGA, HistAI, and REG 2025) using three pathology foundation encoders (CONCHv1.5, UNI2-h, and H-Optimus-1). Our framework standardizes preprocessing, feature extraction, training, decoding, and evaluation, enabling fair comparison across models while providing a modular platform for integrating new methods, datasets, and encoders. A central contribution is the Clinical Report Quality Score (CRQS), a clinically grounded metric for evaluating factual correctness. CRQS maps reference and generated reports into structured clinical attributes and measures four complementary dimensions: clinical fact coverage, key information recall, hallucination rate, and clinical discordance, producing both an overall score and interpretable sub-scores. Experiments demonstrate that conventional language-generation metrics are weakly aligned with clinical correctness and frequently overestimate report quality. In contrast, CRQS reveals clinically meaningful differences between models and encoders that lexical metrics fail to capture. Together, the benchmark, public plug-and-play framework, and CRQS establish a reproducible foundation for rigorous evaluation of pathology report generation.
