RXL-RADSet C

AI benchmark · Healthcare

Domains
Healthcare
Tier
C why
Snapshot

What is RXL-RADSet?

Background: Reporting and Data Systems (RADS) standardize radiology risk communication but automated RADS assignment from narrative reports is challenging because of guideline complexity, output-format constraints, and limited benchmarking across RADS frameworks and model sizes. Purpose: To create RXL-RADSet, a radiologist-verified synthetic multi-RADS benchmark, and compare validity and accuracy of open-weight small language models (SLMs) with a proprietary model for RADS assignment. Materials and Methods: RXL-RADSet contains 1,600 synthetic radiology reports across 10 RADS (BI-RADS, CAD-RADS, GB-RADS, LI-RADS, Lung-RADS, NI-RADS, O-RADS, PI-RADS, TI-RADS, VI-RADS) and multiple modalities. Reports were generated by LLMs using scenario plans and simulated radiologist styles and underwent two-stage radiologist verification. We evaluated 41 quantized SLMs (12 families, 0.135-32B parameters) and GPT-5.2 under a fixed guided prompt. Primary endpoints were validity and accuracy; a secondary analysis compared guided versus zero-shot prompting. Results: Under guided prompting GPT-5.2 achieved 99.8% validity and 81.1% accuracy (1,600 predictions). Pooled SLMs (65,600 predictions) achieved 96.8% validity and 61.1% accuracy; top SLMs in the 20-32B range reached ~99% validity and mid-to-high 70% accuracy. Performance scaled with model size (inflection between <1B and >=10B) and declined with RADS complexity primarily due to classification difficulty rather than invalid outputs. Guided prompting improved validity (99.2% vs 96.7%) and accuracy (78.5% vs 69.6%) compared with zero-shot. Conclusion: RXL-RADSet provides a radiologist-verified multi-RADS benchmark; large SLMs (20-32B) can approach proprietary-model performance under guided prompting, but gaps remain for higher-complexity schemes.

Tier C

C

Niche: a handful of models scored, or built by an RL vendor.

How much stands behind a tier: usage, who backs it, a confirmed line from its own site or paper, and a clear read on X. High with three of the four, medium with two, low otherwise.

  • 12 models scored
  • in curated RL directories (1 pt)
How we got to tier C
  1. Adoption: 12 models scored. Tier C.
  2. Not yet read on X.
  3. In curated RL directories: 1 point, a floor of none.
  4. Not yet confirmed by a line from its own site or paper.

A clear view on X moves a tier one step up or down; most entries don't move. How tiers work.

Not on the map yet: no line from its own site or paper places it in a domain.

More Healthcare AI benchmarks

Healthcare RL environments

Next: browse all benchmarks. Entry from the RL Research daily scrape of public sources, 2026-10-11 snapshot.