Overview of the NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 1: Difficulty-Aware Multilingual and Multimodal Medical Instructional Video Understanding Evaluation

Bin Li; Kan Li; Mingyang Zhao; Shenxi Liu; Yuhang Tian

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Overview of the NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 1: Difficulty-Aware Multilingual and Multimodal Medical Instructional Video Understanding Evaluation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that labeling medical instructional video questions as simple or complex—depending on whether subtitle text suffices—lets a benchmark expose systems that match subtitles without truly understanding the video.

desk verdict New difficulty-aware medical video QA benchmark, but the difficulty labels are unvalidated and the baseline gap is too small to support the paper's main claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06618 v2 pith:OUV7OHDJ submitted 2026-07-07 cs.CV cs.AI

Shenxi Liu , Kan Li , Mingyang Zhao , Yuhang Tian , Bin Li This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CVcs.AI

keywords difficulty-awareevaluationmedicalinstructionalvideoQAtemporalanswergroundingcorpusretrievalmultimodalreasoningmultilingualevidencetypessharedtask

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents a shared task whose central move is to label every medical-video question as simple or complex based on the evidence needed to answer it. Simple questions can be answered from subtitle-aligned text; complex questions, the authors claim, force a system to use visual grounding, action understanding, and procedural reasoning. Three tracks test temporal grounding in a single video, retrieval from a video corpus, and the two combined, with scores reported separately for simple, complex, and mixed question sets. If the labels are valid, the benchmark offers a practical way to distinguish systems that read subtitles from systems that actually watch the medical procedure. This matters because medical instruction videos are used for first aid, nursing, rehabilitation, and emergency guidance, where text-only shortcuts can be misleading.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the simple/complex evidence label: each question is annotated with a difficulty tag stating whether subtitle text alone can answer it. The tag drives all difficulty-aware analyses. The supporting machinery is the three-track evaluation protocol—temporal answer grounding in one video, video corpus retrieval, and retrieval with temporal grounding—scored with IoU/mIoU and R@n/MRR metrics and reported separately for simple, complex, and mixed sets. A text-only oracle baseline and a multimodal encoder–decoder baseline bracket how far subtitle-only reasoning can go and how much visual modeling adds.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of test questions, have several independent annotators re-label each as simple or complex, and measure inter-annotator agreement; then report simple-only and complex-only scores for a text-only system and a multimodal system. If annotators disagree substantially, or if complex questions are answered almost as well from subtitles alone, the difficulty-aware distinction does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that difficulty-aware annotation—marking each question by the type of evidence required—turns a medical instructional video question-answering benchmark into an instrument for separating subtitle matching from genuine multimodal understanding. It defines simple questions as those where subtitle-aligned textual cues are sufficient, and complex questions as those requiring visual grounding, procedural interpretation, and cross-modal integration. The benchmark is organized into three tracks: single-video temporal answer grounding, video corpus retrieval, and corpus-level retrieval plus grounding, each evaluated on simple, complex, and mixed subsets. The reported res

Load-bearing premise

The whole evaluation rests on the assumption that annotators can reliably tell which questions truly require visual evidence; the paper asserts this distinction but gives no agreement or validation data for the labels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the difficulty labels hold, the simple-versus-complex gap becomes a diagnostic: a small gap signals robust multimodal understanding, while a large drop reveals dependence on subtitle cues.
Systems can be ranked not only on overall accuracy but on whether they remain accurate on questions that require visual and procedural evidence.
The corpus-level track exposes error accumulation: a system may fail by retrieving the wrong video, by grounding in the right video, or both, and the metrics separate those failure modes.
Because scores are reported in Chinese and English, the benchmark allows direct comparison of difficulty-aware behavior across languages.
The protocol is reusable: the same simple/complex partition and metric set can be applied to future multimodal reasoning benchmarks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The reported aggregate results show only a narrow gap between the text-only oracle and the multimodal baseline (roughly 1–2 points in the main metrics); if per-difficulty scores were broken out, many 'complex' questions might turn out to be answerable from subtitles, which would weaken the labels' intended distinction. This is an interpretation the paper does not address.
Because the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement or label-validation experiment, a cheap but decisive check on the whole framework is to re-label a sample of questions with multiple annotators and measure agreement.
If the labels are validated, they could guide data generation: writing more complex questions that genuinely resist subtitle matching would sharpen the benchmark and push models toward true visual grounding.
The simple/complex labels could also be used as a training signal, for example by upweighting complex questions or adding auxiliary objectives that require visual evidence.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a genuinely new benchmark resource—difficulty-aware medical instructional video QA with three tracks and a multilingual split—and the paper gives a clear overview of how it was built and what happened in the shared task. That part is solid. The authors also deserve credit for including a text-only oracle baseline and reporting its performance alongside the multimodal baseline; that is the right way to probe whether visual grounding is needed.

The problem is the paper's central claim: that DA-MIVQA can separate systems that match subtitles from systems that actually understand the video. That claim is asserted, not shown. The difficulty labels are the authors' own annotations with no inter-annotator agreement, no label-validation experiment, and—despite promises in Sections 2.2 and 4.5—no simple-only vs complex-only results anywhere in the paper. The only relevant numbers are the overall text-only vs multimodal gaps, and they are small: 0.2925 vs 0.3068 mIoU in Track 1, 0.1418 vs 0.1779 in Track 2, 0.2051 vs 0.2228 in Track 3. If complex questions truly required visual grounding, you would expect a larger collapse for the subtitle-only baseline. The small gap is consistent with the alternative: that most 'complex' questions can be answered from subtitles too, or that the multimodal baseline gains come from representation learning rather than satisfying a real visual-evidence requirement.

There is also a copy-paste error in Section 4.1: it refers to 'NLPCC2025 Shared Task 4' and names winners (HoMaMaOvO, WuKong, Chiikawa) that do not match the tables (Amazon Inc, Team_Wukong, BIGC). That is careless in a camera-ready overview.

So: the benchmark and the shared task are worthwhile, and the paper should get a serious referee. But the evaluation framework as described does not yet establish what the conclusion claims. The authors should release the difficulty labels, report per-difficulty results, and validate the labels with annotators. If they do that, the contribution is real and useful for the medical video QA community.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is the overview of the NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 1, DA-MIVQA, a difficulty-aware multilingual and multimodal medical instructional video question answering benchmark. The task introduces a binary simple/complex difficulty label for each question, where simple questions are claimed to be answerable from subtitle-level text and complex questions are claimed to require visual grounding, procedural understanding, and cross-modal evidence integration. The benchmark contains three tracks (temporal answer grounding in a single video, video corpus retrieval, and joint retrieval+grounding). The paper describes dataset construction, evaluation metrics, a text-only oracle baseline based on Qwen3.5-9B, a multimodal encoder-decoder baseline, and the official results from participating teams. The central claim is that DA-MIVQA provides a benchmark that can distinguish systems that rely on subtitle matching from those that genuinely integrate visual and procedural evidence.

Significance. If the difficulty labels are valid and the evaluation is shown to separate systems on the complex subset, this benchmark would be a useful resource for the medical video QA community: it extends an established line of NLPCC shared tasks, provides multilingual data across three tasks, and ships baseline implementations. The participation and results tables also provide a snapshot of current system performance. However, the paper's central premise is currently not demonstrated. The dataset is a shared-task artifact that is likely to be reused, and the paper does make concrete falsifiable predictions (e.g., that multimodal systems should outperform text-only systems more strongly on complex questions). The strengths are the public dataset and the three-track evaluation protocol. The weakness is that the load-bearing difficulty annotation is not validated and the results that would validate it are not reported.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.3, Table 2] The simple/complex difficulty labels are the defining contribution of DA-MIVQA, yet the paper reports no inter-annotator agreement (e.g., Cohen's kappa), no annotation guideline details, and no human validation that complex questions actually require visual evidence. Without such a validation, the difficulty labels are only the authors' assertion. This is load-bearing because every downstream claim about 'difficulty-aware' evaluation rests on these labels. Please add agreement statistics and a description of the annotation protocol, or explicitly release the labels for external audit.
[Section 2.2 vs. Sections 4.2-4.4, Tables 4-6] Section 2.2 states that results will be reported on simple-only, complex-only, and mixed subsets. The results section, however, reports only aggregate scores in Tables 4-6; Section 4.5 describes an 'expected comparison' between Simple Only and Complex Only results but never presents the actual numbers. The absence of per-difficulty results is a direct gap: the paper's central claim is that the benchmark reveals differences in visual grounding, and that claim cannot be evaluated without a simple/complex breakdown. Please include per-difficulty performance for all baselines and all participating teams in each track.
[Sections 3.1-3.2, Tables 4 and 6] The evidence presented undercuts the central premise. In Track 1, the text-only oracle baseline achieves mIoU 0.2925 vs. 0.3068 for the multimodal baseline; in Track 3, Average 0.2051 vs. 0.2228. These gaps (0.014 and 0.018) are small and may be within run-to-run variation or attributable to representation learning rather than to a genuine requirement for visual evidence in 'complex' questions. If the complex subset truly required visual grounding, a subtitle-only oracle should show a large degradation on that subset relative to a multimodal system. Without the per-difficulty breakdown requested above, the reported aggregate comparison is consistent with the alternative explanation that most 'complex' questions can also be answered from subtitles. Please report the simple/complex split for these baselines and include confidence intervals or significance tests.
[Section 4.1, lines 10-12] The participation paragraph says 'For NLPCC2025 Shared Task 4' when describing the current challenge, which is NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 1. This is more than a typo: it obscures the relationship to prior shared tasks. Please correct the wording and clarify the lineage (CMIVQA 2023, MMIVQA 2024, M4IVQA 2025, DA-MIVQA 2026).

minor comments (4)

[Figure 1] Figure 1 is captioned as a dataset example of the M4IVQA shared task, not DA-MIVQA. Either update the figure to DA-MIVQA examples or revise the caption to indicate that it illustrates the lineage.
[Section 2.3] The text says the dataset is 'expanded through difficulty-aware re-annotation and an increased number of question-answer pairs,' but no comparison with the sizes of CMIVQA/MMIVQA/M4IVQA is given. Add a sentence comparing dataset sizes to justify 'expanded.'
[Table 2] Tracks 2 and 3 have identical sample counts. If this is intentional (same corpus, different task format), state so explicitly; otherwise the table appears suspicious.
[References] References [10] and [31] are the same paper (NLPCC 2023 shared task overview). Please merge or cite once to avoid duplication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports a shared-task benchmark with definitional labels, not a derived prediction; missing label validation is an evidence gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that DA-MIVQA distinguishes systems that rely on subtitle matching from those that integrate visual and procedural evidence. This is an assertion about the benchmark's intended design, not a result derived from fitted parameters or equations. The simple/complex labels are defined by the evidence modality required (Section 2.3), and the conclusion restates that definition; it is not a reduction of a prediction to its inputs. The competition results come from external participating teams (Tables 4–6), so the empirical data are not self-derived. The text-only oracle and multimodal baselines are reference points, not fitted predictions. Self-citations to prior NLPCC shared tasks and MedCraft document the provenance of the task line; they are not load-bearing for any mathematical derivation and no cited 'uniqueness theorem' is invoked. The paper's weakness—absence of inter-annotator agreement, label validation, and per-difficulty score tables—undermines empirical support for the benchmark's validity, but this is an omitted-validation/correctness concern, not circularity. Hence a score of 0 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the validity of the difficulty labels and the baseline design; no derived parameters appear in the paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Simple/complex difficulty labels assigned by annotators accurately reflect the evidence type needed to answer.
Section 2.3: 'each question is further labeled as simple or complex according to the type of evidence needed for answering.' No inter-annotator agreement or label validation is reported.
domain assumption The text-only oracle baseline (frozen Qwen3.5-9B with subtitles) is a reasonable upper bound for pure textual matching.
Section 3.1: uses one frozen LLM with tuned prompts; no evidence this bounds all subtitle-only reasoning.
standard math IoU/mIoU and R@k metrics are valid for temporal grounding and retrieval.
Section 2.2; standard metrics, but the choice of IoU thresholds is arbitrary.
domain assumption YouTube videos from public channels are suitable and correctly captioned medical instructional content.
Section 2.3: dataset collected from public channels, no quality control details beyond manual verification of QA pairs.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Overview of the NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 1: Difficulty-Aware Multilingual and Multimodal Medical Instructional Video Understanding Evaluation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OUV7OHDJ

@misc{pith2026260706618,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Overview of the NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 1: Difficulty-Aware Multilingual and Multimodal Medical Instructional Video Understanding Evaluation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OUV7OHDJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06618}
}

read the original abstract

Following the CMIVQA, MMI-VQA, and M4IVQA challenges in NLPCC 2023--2025, we introduce the Difficulty-Aware Medical Instructional Video Question Answering (DA-MIVQA) shared task for NLPCC 2026. DA-MIVQA extends previous multilingual and multimodal medical video benchmarks by explicitly distinguishing questions according to the type and complexity of evidence required for answering. Specifically, simple questions can often be answered from subtitle-based textual cues, whereas complex questions require visual grounding, procedural understanding, and cross-modal evidence integration. The challenge contains three tracks: Difficulty-Aware Temporal Answer Grounding in Single Video (DA-TAGSV), Difficulty-Aware Video Corpus Retrieval (DA-VCR), and Difficulty-Aware Temporal Answer Grounding in Video Corpus (DA-TAGVC). The dataset is collected from public medical instructional channels, covers diverse scenarios such as first aid, emergency response, rehabilitation, nursing, and general medical education, and is manually verified with difficulty annotations. This paper presents the task motivation, dataset construction, evaluation protocol, participation overview, competition results, and representative systems of DA-MIVQA. DA-MIVQA provides a practical benchmark for evaluating medical instructional video question answering systems under varying textual, visual, temporal, and procedural reasoning requirements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06618 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The multi-modal features of complex questions in DA-MIVQA. Track 2: Difficulty-Aware Video Corpus Retrieval (DA-VCR). Given a question and a large collection of untrimmed medical instructional videos, DA-VCR requires systems to retrieve the most relevant video from the corpus. It evaluates semantic matching between questions and candidate videos under multilingual and multimodal conditions, while further comparing … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The multi-modal features of complex questions in DA-MIVQA. Temporal Answer Grounding in Single Video, Difficulty-Aware Video Corpus Retrieval, and Difficulty-Aware Temporal Answer Grounding in Video Corpus. 2.1 Definition of Each Track The proposed challenge contains three complementary tracks that cover the core capabilities required in medical instructional video understanding, including temporal localization, co… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Illustration of Track 1: Difficulty-Aware Temporal Answer Grounding in Single Video (DA-TAGSV). Answer: 复杂问题:在患者因窒息而失去意识时,应当按压哪里进行急救？ Complex Question: When a patient loses consciousness due to choking, where should one press to perform first aid? 简单问题: 如何通过心肺复苏急救窒息患者？ Simple Question: How to first aid a choking patient with CPR? [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Illustration of Track 2: Difficulty-Aware Video Corpus Retrieval (DA-VCR). For simple questions, retrieval may rely more on subtitle-level lexical or semantic overlap, whereas complex questions often require systems to infer which video contains the most relevant visu…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Illustration of Track 3: Difficulty-Aware Temporal Answer Grounding in Video Corpus (DA-TAGVC). 2.2 Evaluation Metrics Following the evaluation style of previous NLPCC medical instructional video shared tasks, DA-MIVQA adopts task-specific metrics for each track while …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Overview of multi-modal knowledge mining and encoder–decoder baseline method. medical instructional video. The subtitle encoder maps each SRT sentence into a contextual textual representation while preserving its start and end timestamps. The visual encoder maps each s…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

DAEP: Difficulty-Aware Evidence Planning for Medical Video Corpus Temporal Answer Grounding
cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

DAEP, a difficulty-aware video retrieval and temporal grounding system, ranked first among ten systems on the NLPCC 2026 medical video question answering shared task.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Transforming surgical training with ai techniques for training, assessment, and evaluation: Scoping review.Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, 2025

David Escobar-Castillejos, Ari Y Barrera-Animas, Julieta Noguez, Alejandra J Magana, and Bedrich Benes. Transforming surgical training with ai techniques for training, assessment, and evaluation: Scoping review.Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, 2025

2025
[2]

Riddle, Divya Kewalramani, Mayur Narayan, and Daniel B

Elijah W. Riddle, Divya Kewalramani, Mayur Narayan, and Daniel B. Jones. Surgical simulation: Virtual reality to artificial intelligence.Current Problems in Surgery, 61(11):101625, 2024

2024
[3]

The impact of surgical simulation and training technologies on gen- eral surgery education.BMC Medical Education, 24(1):1297, Nov 2024

Aidin Shahrezaei, Maryam Sohani, Soroush Taherkhani, and Seyed Yahya Zarghami. The impact of surgical simulation and training technologies on gen- eral surgery education.BMC Medical Education, 24(1):1297, Nov 2024

2024
[4]

The role of online videos in teaching procedural skills in postgraduate medical education: A scoping review.Journal of Surgical Education, 79(5):1295–1307, 2022

Komal Srinivasa, Fiona Moir, and Felicity Goodyear-Smith. The role of online videos in teaching procedural skills in postgraduate medical education: A scoping review.Journal of Surgical Education, 79(5):1295–1307, 2022

2022
[5]

How to develop an online video for teaching health procedural skills: Tutorial for health educators new to video production.JMIR Medical Education, 10, 2023

Komal Srinivasa, Amanda Charlton, Fiona Moir, and Felicity Goodyear-Smith. How to develop an online video for teaching health procedural skills: Tutorial for health educators new to video production.JMIR Medical Education, 10, 2023. Overview of the NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 1 17

2023
[6]

Miles, Alison Clay, W

Ilana Roberts Krumm, Matthew C. Miles, Alison Clay, W. Graham Carlos II, and Rosemary Adamson. Making effective educational videos for clinical teaching. Chest, 161(3):764–772, 2022

2022
[7]

Bin Li, Yixuan Weng, Bin Sun, and Shutao Li. Learning to locate visual answer in video corpus using question.ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1–5, 2022

2023
[8]

Visual answer localization with cross-modal mutual knowledge transfer, 2022

Yixuan Weng and Bin Li. Visual answer localization with cross-modal mutual knowledge transfer, 2022

2022

Show all 38 references

[9]

Towards visual-prompt temporal answer grounding in instructional video.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(12):8836–8853, 2024

Shutao Li, Bin Li, Bin Sun, and Yixuan Weng. Towards visual-prompt temporal answer grounding in instructional video.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 46(12):8836–8853, 2024

2024
[10]

Overview of the nlpcc 2023 shared task: Chinese medical instructional video question answering

Bin Li, Yixuan Weng, Hu Guo, Bin Sun, Shutao Li, Yuhao Luo, Mengyao Qi, Xufei Liu, Yuwei Han, Haiwen Liang, Shuting Gao, and Chen Chen. Overview of the nlpcc 2023 shared task: Chinese medical instructional video question answering. In Fei Liu, Nan Duan, Qingting Xu, and Yu Hon...

2023
[11]

Overview of the nlpcc 2024 shared task 7: Multi-lingual medical instructional video question answering

Bin Li, Yixuan Weng, Qiya Song, Lianhui Liang, Xianwen Min, and Shoujun Zhou. Overview of the nlpcc 2024 shared task 7: Multi-lingual medical instructional video question answering. In Derek F. Wong, Zhongyu Wei, and Muyun Yang, editors, Natural Language Processing and Chinese...

2024
[12]

Overview of the nlpcc 2025 shared task 4: Multi-modal, multilingual, and multi- hop medical instructional video question answering challenge

Bin Li, Shenxi Liu, Yixuan Weng, Yue Du, Yuhang Tian, and Shoujun Zhou. Overview of the nlpcc 2025 shared task 4: Multi-modal, multilingual, and multi- hop medical instructional video question answering challenge. In Xian-Ling Mao, Zhaochun Ren, and Muyun Yang, editors,Natural...

2025
[13]

M3-med: A benchmark for multi-lingual, multi- modal, and multi-hop reasoning in medical instructional video understanding, 2025

Shenxi Liu, Kan Li, Mingyang Zhao, Yuhang Tian, Bin Li, Shoujun Zhou, Hongliang Li, and Fuxia Yang. M3-med: A benchmark for multi-lingual, multi- modal, and multi-hop reasoning in medical instructional video understanding, 2025

2025
[14]

A uni- fied framework for optimizing video corpus retrieval and temporal answer ground- ing: Fine-grained modality alignment and local-global optimization

Shuang Cheng, Zineng Zhou, Jun Liu, Jian Ye, Haiyong Luo, and Yang Gu. A uni- fied framework for optimizing video corpus retrieval and temporal answer ground- ing: Fine-grained modality alignment and local-global optimization. In Fei Liu, Nan Duan, Qingting Xu, and Yu Hong, ed...

2023
[15]

Videocorpusmomentretrievalwithcontrastivelearning

Hao Zhang, Aixin Sun, Wei Jing, Guoshun Nan, Liangli Zhen, Joey Tianyi Zhou, andRickSiowMongGoh. Videocorpusmomentretrievalwithcontrastivelearning. InProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR ’21, pag...

2021
[16]

Assessing modality bias in video question answering benchmarks with multimodal large language models

Jean Park, Kuk Jin Jang, Basam Alasaly, Sriharsha Mopidevi, Andrew Zolen- sky, Eric Eaton, Insup Lee, and Kevin Johnson. Assessing modality bias in video question answering benchmarks with multimodal large language models. InProceedings of the Thirty-Ninth AAAI Conference on A...

2025
[17]

Video question answering: Datasets, algorithms and challenges, 2022

Yaoyao Zhong, Junbin Xiao, Wei Ji, Yicong Li, Weihong Deng, and Tat-Seng Chua. Video question answering: Datasets, algorithms and challenges, 2022

2022
[18]

Tips for teaching procedural skills.BMC Medical Education, 20(2):458, Dec 2020

Annette Burgess, Christie van Diggele, Chris Roberts, and Craig Mellis. Tips for teaching procedural skills.BMC Medical Education, 20(2):458, Dec 2020. 18 S. Liu et al

2020
[19]

Use of videos by health care professionals for procedure support in acute cardiac care: A scoping review.Heart, Lung and Circulation, 32(2):143–155, 2023

Jacqueline Colgan, Sarah Kourouche, Geoffrey Tofler, and Thomas Buckley. Use of videos by health care professionals for procedure support in acute cardiac care: A scoping review.Heart, Lung and Circulation, 32(2):143–155, 2023

2023
[20]

Time- craft: navigate weakly-supervised temporal grounded video question answer- ing via bi-directional reasoning

Huabin Liu, Xiao Ma, Cheng Zhong, Yang Zhang, and Weiyao Lin. Time- craft: navigate weakly-supervised temporal grounded video question answer- ing via bi-directional reasoning. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2024: 18th European Conference, Milan, Italy, September 29–Octobe...

2024
[21]

Gustafson, Nicholas A

Vernon Curran, Karla Simmons, Lauren Matthews, Lisa Fleet, Diana L. Gustafson, Nicholas A. Fairbridge, and Xiaolin Xu. Youtube as an educational resource in medical education: a scoping review.Medical Science Educator, 30(4):1775–1782, Dec 2020

2020
[22]

Assessing modality bias in video question answering benchmarks with multimodal large language models.ArXiv, abs/2408.12763, 2024

Jean Park, Kuk Jin Jang, Basam Alasaly, Sriharsha Mopidevi, Andrew Zolensky, Eric Eaton, Insup Lee, and Kevin Johnson. Assessing modality bias in video question answering benchmarks with multimodal large language models.ArXiv, abs/2408.12763, 2024

2024 arXiv
[23]

TVQA+: Spatio-temporal grounding for video question answering

Jie Lei, Licheng Yu, Tamara Berg, and Mohit Bansal. TVQA+: Spatio-temporal grounding for video question answering. In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel Tetreault, editors,Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics...

2020
[24]

Cynthia J. Brame. Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for max- imizing student learning from video content.CBE Life Sciences Education, 15, 2016

2016
[25]

A dataset for medical in- structional video classification and question answering.Scientific Data, 10(1):158, Mar 2023

Deepak Gupta, Kush Attal, and Dina Demner-Fushman. A dataset for medical in- structional video classification and question answering.Scientific Data, 10(1):158, Mar 2023

2023
[26]

Med- craft: Automated construction of interpretable and multi-hop video workloads via knowledge graph traversal, 2025

ShenxiLiu,KanLi,MingyangZhao,YuhangTian,ShoujunZhou,andBinLi. Med- craft: Automated construction of interpretable and multi-hop video workloads via knowledge graph traversal, 2025

2025
[27]

Qwen3.5: Accelerating productivity with native multimodal agents, February 2026

Qwen Team. Qwen3.5: Accelerating productivity with native multimodal agents, February 2026

2026
[28]

Visual answer localization with cross-modal mutual knowledge transfer

Yixuan Weng and Bin Li. Visual answer localization with cross-modal mutual knowledge transfer. InICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1–5, 2023

2023
[29]

Improving multilingualtemporalansweringgroundinginsinglevideoviallm-basedtranslation and ocr enhancement

Huan Zhang, Chen Zheng, Yuanjing He, Yan Zhao, and Yuxuan Lai. Improving multilingualtemporalansweringgroundinginsinglevideoviallm-basedtranslation and ocr enhancement. InCCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, pages 145–156. Springer, 2024

2024
[30]

Improv- ing cross-modal visual answer localization in chinese medical instructional video using language prompts

ZinengZhou,JunLiu,ShuangCheng,HaiyongLuo,YangGu,andJianYe. Improv- ing cross-modal visual answer localization in chinese medical instructional video using language prompts. InCCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, pages 221–232. Spri...

2023
[31]

Overview of the nlpcc 2023 shared task:Chinesemedicalinstructionalvideoquestionanswering

Bin Li, Yixuan Weng, Hu Guo, Bin Sun, Shutao Li, Yuhao Luo, Mengyao Qi, Xufei Liu, Yuwei Han, Haiwen Liang, et al. Overview of the nlpcc 2023 shared task:Chinesemedicalinstructionalvideoquestionanswering. InCCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chines...

2023
[32]

Hierarchical indexing with knowledge en- richment for multilingual video corpus retrieval

Yu Wang, Tianhao Tan, and Yifei Wang. Hierarchical indexing with knowledge en- richment for multilingual video corpus retrieval. In Xian-Ling Mao, Zhaochun Ren, Overview of the NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 1 19 and Muyun Yang, editors,Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computin...

2026
[33]

Mqua: Multi-level query-video augmentation for multilingual video corpus retrieval

Guyang Yu, Xiaoyang Bi, Jielong Tang, Ming Gu, Tianbai Chen, Zhiqiang Li, and Miankuan Zhu. Mqua: Multi-level query-video augmentation for multilingual video corpus retrieval. InCCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, pages 353–364. S...

2024
[34]

A two-stage chinese medical video retrieval framework with llm

Ningjie Lei, Jinxiang Cai, Yixin Qian, Zhilong Zheng, Chao Han, Zhiyue Liu, and Qingbao Huang. A two-stage chinese medical video retrieval framework with llm. InCCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, pages 211–220. Springer, 2023

2023
[35]

Mul- tilingual temporal answer grounding in video corpus with enhanced visual-textual integration

Tianxing Ma, Yueyue Hu, Shuang Jiang, Zhenhao Yin, and Tianning Zang. Mul- tilingual temporal answer grounding in video corpus with enhanced visual-textual integration. InCCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, pages 471–483. Springer, 2024

2024
[36]

Multi-hop knowledge-enhanced query reasoning for multi-modal medical video qa

Yangchengyu Zhou, Jiayuan Wu, and Yunze Li. Multi-hop knowledge-enhanced query reasoning for multi-modal medical video qa. In Xian-Ling Mao, Zhaochun Ren, and Muyun Yang, editors,Natural Language Processing and Chinese Com- puting, pages 380–392, Singapore, 2026. Springer Natu...

2026
[37]

A uni- fied framework for optimizing video corpus retrieval and temporal answer ground- ing: fine-grained modality alignment and local-global optimization

Shuang Cheng, Zineng Zhou, Jun Liu, Jian Ye, Haiyong Luo, and Yang Gu. A uni- fied framework for optimizing video corpus retrieval and temporal answer ground- ing: fine-grained modality alignment and local-global optimization. InCCF In- ternational Conference on Natural Langua...

2023
[2025]

Springer Nature Singapore

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Transforming surgical training with ai techniques for training, assessment, and evaluation: Scoping review.Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, 2025

David Escobar-Castillejos, Ari Y Barrera-Animas, Julieta Noguez, Alejandra J Magana, and Bedrich Benes. Transforming surgical training with ai techniques for training, assessment, and evaluation: Scoping review.Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, 2025

2025

[2] [2]

Riddle, Divya Kewalramani, Mayur Narayan, and Daniel B

Elijah W. Riddle, Divya Kewalramani, Mayur Narayan, and Daniel B. Jones. Surgical simulation: Virtual reality to artificial intelligence.Current Problems in Surgery, 61(11):101625, 2024

2024

[3] [3]

The impact of surgical simulation and training technologies on gen- eral surgery education.BMC Medical Education, 24(1):1297, Nov 2024

Aidin Shahrezaei, Maryam Sohani, Soroush Taherkhani, and Seyed Yahya Zarghami. The impact of surgical simulation and training technologies on gen- eral surgery education.BMC Medical Education, 24(1):1297, Nov 2024

2024

[4] [4]

The role of online videos in teaching procedural skills in postgraduate medical education: A scoping review.Journal of Surgical Education, 79(5):1295–1307, 2022

Komal Srinivasa, Fiona Moir, and Felicity Goodyear-Smith. The role of online videos in teaching procedural skills in postgraduate medical education: A scoping review.Journal of Surgical Education, 79(5):1295–1307, 2022

2022

[5] [5]

How to develop an online video for teaching health procedural skills: Tutorial for health educators new to video production.JMIR Medical Education, 10, 2023

Komal Srinivasa, Amanda Charlton, Fiona Moir, and Felicity Goodyear-Smith. How to develop an online video for teaching health procedural skills: Tutorial for health educators new to video production.JMIR Medical Education, 10, 2023. Overview of the NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 1 17

2023

[6] [6]

Miles, Alison Clay, W

Ilana Roberts Krumm, Matthew C. Miles, Alison Clay, W. Graham Carlos II, and Rosemary Adamson. Making effective educational videos for clinical teaching. Chest, 161(3):764–772, 2022

2022

[7] [7]

Bin Li, Yixuan Weng, Bin Sun, and Shutao Li. Learning to locate visual answer in video corpus using question.ICASSP 2023 - 2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1–5, 2022

2023

[8] [8]

Visual answer localization with cross-modal mutual knowledge transfer, 2022

Yixuan Weng and Bin Li. Visual answer localization with cross-modal mutual knowledge transfer, 2022

2022