Expanding Relevance Judgments for Medical Case-based Retrieval Task with Multimodal LLMs

Abstract: Evaluating Information Retrieval (IR) systems relies on high-quality manual relevance judgments (qrels), which are costly and time-consuming to obtain. While pooling reduces the annotation effort, it results in only partially labeled datasets. LLMs offer a promising alternative to reducing reliance on manual judgments, particularly in complex domains like medical case-based retrieval, where relevance assessment requires analyzing both textual and visual information. In this work, we explore using a Multimodal LLM (MLLM) to expand relevance judgments, creating a new dataset of automated judgments. Specifically, we employ Gemini 1.5 Pro on the ImageCLEFmed 2013 case-based retrieval task, simulating human assessment through an iteratively refined, structured prompting strategy that integrates binary scoring, instruction-based evaluation, and few-shot learning. We systematically experimented with various prompt configurations to maximize agreement with human judgments. To evaluate agreement between the MLLM and human judgments, we use Cohen's Kappa, achieving a substantial agreement score of 0.6, comparable to inter-annotator agreement typically observed in multimodal retrieval tasks. Starting from the original 15,028 manual judgments (4.72% relevant) across 35 topics, our MLLM-based approach expanded the dataset by over 37x to 558,653 judgments, increasing relevant annotations to 5,950. On average, each medical case query received 15,398 new annotations, with approximately 99% being non-relevant, reflecting the high sparsity typical in this domain. Our results demonstrate the potential of MLLMs to scale relevance judgment collection, offering a promising direction for supporting retrieval evaluation in medical and multimodal IR tasks.