EpiQAL provides fine-grained diagnostic signals for evidence-grounding, inferential reasoning, and conclusion reconstruction for epidemiological question answering over research literature, comprising three subsets built from open-access articles across diverse diseases.
Abstract
Reliable epidemiological reasoning requires synthesizing study evidence to infer disease burden, transmission dynamics, and intervention effects at the population level. Existing medical question answering benchmarks primarily emphasize clinical knowledge or patient-level reasoning, yet few systematically evaluate evidence-grounded epidemiological inference. We present EpiQAL, to our knowledge the first diagnostic benchmark for epidemiological question answering over research literature, comprising three subsets built from open-access articles across diverse diseases. The three subsets progressively test factual recall, multi-step inference, and conclusion reconstruction under incomplete information, and are constructed through a quality-controlled pipeline combining taxonomy guidance, multi-model verification, and difficulty screening. Experiments on fifteen models spanning open-source and proprietary systems reveal that current LLMs show limited performance on epidemiological reasoning, with multi-step inference posing the greatest challenge. Model rankings shift across subsets, and scale alone does not predict success. Chain-of-Thought prompting benefits multi-step inference but yields mixed results elsewhere. EpiQAL provides fine-grained diagnostic signals for evidence-grounding, inferential reasoning, and conclusion reconstruction.
Constantly evolving real-world knowledge necessitates models to be updated continuously. Especially in medicine, as clinical evidence changes over time, outdated knowledge can pose safety risks. Existing evaluations of knowledge integration focus on factual recall, offering limited insight into whether newly integrated...
Lukas Thede, Yash Kumar Atri, David Chen et al.· 0 citations
SENTRYLINE is presented, a living guideline-aware clinical question answering system that retrieves guideline passages through a vectorless hierarchical RAG pipeline and returns a role-specific answer with inline citations, factual and temporal verification reports, and drift detection notes that surface when a guideli...
Tampu Ravi Kumar, Gaurav Najpande, Muhammad Ali Khan et al.· 1 citation· ⚡1
It is shown that while LLMs exhibit strong recall, they often perform poorly at providing valid scientific articles and evidence for support and at rejecting unsupported hypotheses, highlighting the need for rigorous evaluation before using LLMs for search and retrieval in healthcare settings.
Safiyyah Ahmed, Abrar Ansari, M. Islam et al.· 0 citations
Systematic reviews condense clinical trials into evidence tables, yet clinicians can interrogate these tables only through database queries, and many questions concern attributes that the table does not record, such as a drug’s target class or a harmonised endpoint. Here we introduce FD-SCoPE, a language-model framewor...
M. Choudhury, Suparno Roy Chowdhury, S. Sahoo et al.· bioRxiv· 0 citations
LogiMed-RoB demonstrates that high outcome accuracy can conceal critical reasoning flaws, underscoring the necessity of white-box logical verification for clinical deployment.
Jia-Yu Huang, Zi-Chen Tang, Qian-Hui Ling et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) show potential for medical tasks, but their single-turn question-answer format does not reflect how clinical diagnosis is performed in practice. As a result, they remain limited in complex diagnostic settings. We developed Debate-Mixture-of-Agents (DMoA), a novel multi-agent framework that...
Chang-Da Xia, L. Ouyang, Hui-Min Wang et al.· 0 citations