@inproceedings{zhou-etal-2025-feedback,
    title = "From Feedback to Checklists: Grounded Evaluation of {AI}-Generated Clinical Notes",
    author = "Zhou, Karen  and
      Giorgi, John Michael  and
      Mani, Pranav  and
      Xu, Peng  and
      Liang, Davis  and
      Tan, Chenhao",
    editor = "Potdar, Saloni  and
      Rojas-Barahona, Lina  and
      Montella, Sebastien",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track",
    month = nov,
    year = "2025",
    address = "Suzhou (China)",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-emnlp/2025.emnlp-industry.104/",
    pages = "1485--1499",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-333-3",
    abstract = "AI-generated clinical notes are increasingly used in healthcare, but evaluating their quality remains a challenge due to high subjectivity and limited scalability of expert review. Existing automated metrics often fail to align with real-world physician preferences. To address this, we propose a pipeline that systematically distills real user feedback into structured checklists for note evaluation. These checklists are designed to be interpretable, grounded in human feedback, and enforceable by LLM-based evaluators. Using deidentified data from over 21,000 clinical encounters (prepared in accordance with the HIPAA safe harbor standard) from a deployed AI medical scribe system, we show that our feedback-derived checklist outperforms a baseline approach in our offline evaluations in coverage, diversity, and predictive power for human ratings. Extensive experiments confirm the checklist{'}s robustness to quality-degrading perturbations, significant alignment with clinician preferences, and practical value as an evaluation methodology. In offline research settings, our checklist offers a practical tool for flagging notes that may fall short of our defined quality standards."
}