Table 4:
Consensus clinical evaluations of dense information extraction outputs from FS-FCSP by Llama3:8b. ↓ indicates the lower the better, and ↑ indicates the higher the better.
| Evaluation Criteria | Criteria | Physician 1 | Physician 2 | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 1. Clinical Relevance↑ | Accuracy of Key Information | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Critical Omissions | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
|
| ||||
| 2. Comprehensibility↑ | Readability | 4 | 5 | 4.5 |
| Conciseness | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
|
| ||||
| 3. Clinical Usability↑ | Practicality | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Actionability | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
|
| ||||
| 4. Error Impact Assessment↓ | Severity of Errors | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Tolerance for Hallucination | 5 | 4 | 4.5 | |
|
| ||||
| 5. Alignment with Clinical Judgment↑ | Trustworthiness | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Contextual Appropriateness | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
|
| ||||
| 6. Consistency↑ | Model Consistency Across Cases | 4 | 3 | 3.5 |
|
| ||||
| 7. Preference Scoring↑ | Overall Performance | 4 | 4 | 4 |