arxiv-2609-02396 · paperImproving Health Literacy through Lay Summarization of Radiological Reports: An Evaluation of BioNER and Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Created: 2026-09-02 · Ingested: 2026-09-09
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02396(opens in a new tab)Radiology reports are written primarily for clinicians, and their specialized terminology often makes them difficult for patients to interpret. As a result, many patients turn to publicly available Large Language Models (LLMs) to help explain their reports, despite well-documented risks of factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. Automated lay-summary generation has emerged as a promising alternative, yet the effectiveness of retrieval-enhanced and clinically informed approaches for radiology-specific communication remains underexplored. This study investigates the extent to which Retrieval-Au
In brief
Feeding a model a list of extracted biomedical entities helps lay summarization of radiology reports; retrieving Wikipedia definitions for the same terms does not, and can add hallucinations.
The setup pairs Qwen3.5-0.8B and BioBART-v2-large across 4 conditions (baseline, +BioNER via Stanza's radiology NER, +RAG over a local term database backed by the Wikipedia API, +both), in both few-shot and LoRA fine-tuned regimes. Data came from PadChest, BIMCV-COVID19+, Open-i and MIMIC-CXR with Layman's RRG lay summaries, re-split into 168,036 training and 5,000 test reports, scored on 9 equally weighted metrics.
Fine-tuned BioBART with BioNER scored best overall (FKGL 6.09 vs 7.29 for the plain fine-tune, ROUGE 0.5335 vs 0.5438). RAG alone cut relevance (BioBART fine-tuned ROUGE 0.452, FENICE 0.4062 vs 0.6629). Combining both collapsed few-shot Qwen (mean 0.5172 vs 0.8221 at 0-shot).
Effects were measured with matched baselines per model and regime, so the enhancement is isolated, but only 2 models, 1 NER system and 1 retrieval source were tested, and the failure diagnosis (surface-form collisions, unmatched multi-word entities) rests on manual inspection with no counts. Gold summaries are themselves machine-generated, and no patients or clinicians rated the outputs.
If your grounding pipeline retrieves open-web definitions, check whether entity extraction alone does more.
Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-09, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.
Referenced by
Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.