Evaluating Causal Explanation in Medical Reports with LLM-Based and Human-Aligned Metrics

Abstract

This study investigates how accurately different evaluation metrics capture the quality of causal explanations in automatically generated diagnostic reports. We compare six metrics: BERTScore, Cosine Similarity, BioSentVec, GPT-White, GPT-Black, and expert qualitative assessment across two input types: observation-based and multiple-choice-based report generation. Two weighting strategies are applied: one reflecting task-specific priorities, and the other assigning equal weights to all metrics. Our results show that GPT-Black demonstrates the strongest discriminative power in identifying logically coherent and clinically valid causal narratives. GPT-White also aligns well with expert evaluations, while similarity-based metrics diverge from clinical reasoning quality. These findings emphasize the impact of metric selection and weighting on evaluation outcomes, supporting the use of LLM-based evaluation for tasks requiring interpretability and causal reasoning.