Blinded Radiologist and LLM-Based Evaluation of LLM-Generated Japanese Translations of Chest CT Reports: Comparative Study

TL;DR

This study compares radiologist and LLM-based evaluations of Japanese translations of chest CT reports, revealing significant discrepancies and highlighting the need for expert review in educational contexts.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis showing that LLM-based evaluations do not align well with radiologist assessments, emphasizing the importance of expert review.

Findings

LLM judges strongly favored LLM translations across all criteria.

Radiologists showed substantial disagreement and varied preferences.

Agreement between radiologists and LLM judges was near zero.

Abstract

Background: Accurate translation of radiology reports is important for multilingual research, clinical communication, and radiology education, but the validity of LLM-based evaluation remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the educational suitability of LLM-generated Japanese translations of chest CT reports and compare radiologist assessments with LLM-as-a-judge evaluations. Methods: We analyzed 150 chest CT reports from the CT-RATE-JPN validation set. For each English report, a human-edited Japanese translation was compared with an LLM-generated translation by DeepSeek-V3.2. A board-certified radiologist and a radiology resident independently performed blinded pairwise evaluations across 4 criteria: terminology accuracy, readability, overall quality, and radiologist-style authenticity. In parallel, 3 LLM judges (DeepSeek-V3.2, Mistral Large 3, and GPT-5) evaluated the same pairs. Agreement was assessed using QWK and percentage agreement. Results: Agreement between radiologists and LLM judges was near zero (QWK=-0.04 to 0.15). Agreement between the 2 radiologists was also poor (QWK=0.01 to 0.06). Radiologist 1 rated terminology as equivalent in 59% of cases and favored the LLM translation for readability (51%) and overall quality (51%). Radiologist 2 rated readability as equivalent in 75% of cases and favored the human-edited translation for overall quality (40% vs 21%). All 3 LLM judges strongly favored the LLM translation across all criteria (70%-99%) and rated it as more radiologist-like in >93% of cases. Conclusions: LLM-generated translations were often judged natural and fluent, but the 2 radiologists differed substantially. LLM-as-a-judge showed strong preference for LLM output and negligible agreement with radiologists. For educational use of translated radiology reports, automated LLM-based evaluation alone is insufficient; expert radiologist review remains important.