Evaluating Medical Text Summaries Using Automatic Evaluation Metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge Approach: A Pilot Study.

Area of Science:

• Medical Informatics
• Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Background:

• Electronic health records (EHRs) contain vital clinical data but are challenging to process.
• Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising solution for summarizing EHR data to aid physicians.
• Automated quality control is essential for integrating LLM summarization tools into clinical practice.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the feasibility and limitations of automated quality control for LLM-generated medical summaries.
• To evaluate automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-judge approaches without expert involvement.

Main Methods:

• Six open-source LLMs generated summaries from 30 EHR text samples.
• Summaries were evaluated using standard metrics (BLEU, ROUGE, METEOR, BERTScore) and LLM-as-a-judge.
• Criteria included relevance, completeness, redundancy, coherence, grammar, terminology, and hallucination detection.
• Expert evaluation was performed using the same criteria for comparison.

Main Results:

• LLMs demonstrate significant potential for summarizing medical data.
• Neither automatic metrics nor LLM judges reliably detect factual errors or semantic distortions (hallucinations).
• A Pearson correlation of 0.688 was observed between LLM summary quality scores and expert opinions regarding relevance.

Conclusions:

• Fully automating the quality evaluation of medical summaries remains a significant challenge.
• Future research should prioritize hallucination detection methods and explore larger, specialized LLMs for medical text.
• Integrating retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) into LLM-as-a-judge architectures warrants further investigation.