REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 49 cited by
Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.
T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →
T0 review · grok-4.3
MedXpertQA supplies 4,460 expert-reviewed medical questions across 17 specialties to test genuine clinical reasoning in AI systems.
2026-05-16 14:22 UTC pith:3GI7AM4O
load-bearing objection MedXpertQA gives a larger, more clinically grounded multimodal benchmark plus a reasoning subset, but the leakage controls stay qualitative. the 1 major comments →
MedXpertQA: Benchmarking Expert-Level Medical Reasoning and Understanding
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
MedXpertQA is a benchmark consisting of 4,460 questions spanning 17 specialties and 11 body systems, with a Text subset for textual evaluation and an MM subset for multimodal evaluation featuring diverse images and rich clinical information such as patient records. The benchmark was created through rigorous filtering, data synthesis to mitigate leakage, augmentation, and multiple rounds of expert reviews to ensure accuracy, providing a comprehensive tool for evaluating expert-level medical reasoning.
What carries the argument
The MedXpertQA benchmark, built through expert-reviewed filtering of specialty board questions, data augmentation, leakage mitigation via synthesis, and inclusion of multimodal clinical records and images.
Load-bearing premise
The selected and augmented questions, after expert review and synthesis, accurately represent genuine expert-level clinical reasoning without residual data leakage or selection bias that would inflate model performance.
What would settle it
A model that scores high on MedXpertQA but produces incorrect diagnoses or treatment plans on newly written, never-published clinical cases presented directly by practicing physicians would show the benchmark fails to capture real expert reasoning.
If this is right
- Top models can be ranked more reliably by their ability to perform advanced medical reasoning rather than pattern matching.
- The multimodal subset tests whether systems can integrate visual clinical data with textual patient records in one workflow.
- A dedicated reasoning-oriented subset allows targeted assessment of step-by-step thinking in models like o1.
- Medicine becomes a stronger test domain for general reasoning capabilities beyond mathematics and programming.
- Developers gain clearer signals on where current AI still falls short of expert clinical decision-making.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- If models succeed here, they may become more trustworthy for assisting physicians, though separate real-world trials would still be required.
- The expert-review and synthesis process could transfer to creating rigorous benchmarks in other professional fields such as law or engineering.
- Large performance gaps that persist across models would point to architectural limits in handling integrated clinical evidence.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper introduces MedXpertQA, a benchmark of 4,460 questions spanning 17 specialties and 11 body systems, split into text-only and multimodal (MM) subsets. It claims to improve on prior datasets like MedQA via rigorous filtering, augmentation, data synthesis for leakage mitigation, and multiple rounds of expert review, while evaluating 18 models and providing a reasoning-oriented subset for o1-like systems.
Significance. If the leakage-mitigation and expert-validation steps hold, MedXpertQA would offer a meaningfully harder and more clinically grounded testbed than existing medical QA collections, particularly through its MM subset that pairs diverse images with rich patient records rather than caption-derived pairs. The public release of code and data is a clear strength for reproducibility.
major comments (1)
- [Benchmark Construction / Data Synthesis] The data-synthesis procedure (described in the methods section on benchmark construction) is presented as sufficient to eliminate leakage from specialty-board sources, yet no quantitative audit—n-gram overlap, embedding cosine thresholds, or membership-inference results—is reported between the original questions and the final synthesized set or against common pre-training corpora. This omission directly weakens the central claim that high model scores reflect genuine expert reasoning rather than residual memorization.
minor comments (2)
- [Experiments] Table 1 (or the equivalent model-evaluation table) should report per-specialty breakdowns or at least variance across the 17 specialties to support the claim of comprehensive coverage.
- [Dataset Description] The abstract states that MM questions contain 'rich clinical information, including patient records and examination results,' but the main text would benefit from one or two concrete examples showing how these elements are formatted and how they differ from prior multimodal medical benchmarks.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the potential value of MedXpertQA as a more challenging and clinically grounded benchmark. We address the single major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative validation.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [Benchmark Construction / Data Synthesis] The data-synthesis procedure (described in the methods section on benchmark construction) is presented as sufficient to eliminate leakage from specialty-board sources, yet no quantitative audit—n-gram overlap, embedding cosine thresholds, or membership-inference results—is reported between the original questions and the final synthesized set or against common pre-training corpora. This omission directly weakens the central claim that high model scores reflect genuine expert reasoning rather than residual memorization.
Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript describes the data-synthesis steps (filtering, augmentation, and expert review) but does not report quantitative leakage audits such as n-gram overlap statistics, embedding cosine similarities, or membership-inference tests. Our defense rests on the multi-stage process: source questions were drawn from specialty-board exams, heavily rewritten and augmented with new clinical details, then subjected to three rounds of independent expert review to ensure substantive differences. Nevertheless, to directly address the referee's concern and strengthen the central claim, we will add a dedicated subsection in the revised Methods and Appendix that reports (1) average n-gram overlap (1- to 5-grams) between original and synthesized questions, (2) mean and maximum cosine similarities using sentence embeddings, and (3) a comparison against a sample of common pre-training corpora. These metrics will be computed on the released dataset and code, allowing readers to verify the effectiveness of leakage mitigation. revision: yes
Circularity Check
Benchmark assembled from external exam sources with independent expert validation
full rationale
The paper constructs MedXpertQA by sourcing questions from external medical board exams and textbooks, then applies filtering, augmentation, data synthesis, and multiple rounds of expert review to create the final 4,460-question set. No equations, predictions, or first-principles derivations are presented that reduce to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or self-citation chains. The central claims rest on the independence of the source materials and the external validation process rather than any internal reduction, keeping the methodology self-contained.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
axioms (1)
- domain assumption Multiple rounds of expert review ensure accuracy and clinical relevance of questions
read the original abstract
We introduce MedXpertQA, a highly challenging and comprehensive benchmark to evaluate expert-level medical knowledge and advanced reasoning. MedXpertQA includes 4,460 questions spanning 17 specialties and 11 body systems. It includes two subsets, Text for text evaluation and MM for multimodal evaluation. Notably, MM introduces expert-level exam questions with diverse images and rich clinical information, including patient records and examination results, setting it apart from traditional medical multimodal benchmarks with simple QA pairs generated from image captions. MedXpertQA applies rigorous filtering and augmentation to address the insufficient difficulty of existing benchmarks like MedQA, and incorporates specialty board questions to improve clinical relevance and comprehensiveness. We perform data synthesis to mitigate data leakage risk and conduct multiple rounds of expert reviews to ensure accuracy and reliability. We evaluate 18 leading models on \benchmark. Moreover, medicine is deeply connected to real-world decision-making, providing a rich and representative setting for assessing reasoning abilities beyond mathematics and code. To this end, we develop a reasoning-oriented subset to facilitate the assessment of o1-like models. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/TsinghuaC3I/MedXpertQA
Forward citations
Cited by 49 Pith papers
-
NeuroQA: A Large-Scale Image-Grounded Benchmark for 3D Brain MRI Understanding
NeuroQA is a large-scale 3D brain MRI visual question answering benchmark with verified image-grounded QA pairs, multi-domain coverage, and baseline evaluations showing current models lag behind text-only performance.
-
Fully Open Meditron: An Auditable Pipeline for Clinical LLMs
Presents the first fully open pipeline for clinical LLMs by unifying eight public QA datasets with three clinician-vetted synthetic extensions and applying it to five base models to achieve benchmark gains while maint...
-
RealICU: Do LLM Agents Understand Long-Context ICU Data? A Benchmark Beyond Behavior Imitation
RealICU is a new benchmark using physician hindsight labels on MIMIC-IV ICU data that exposes LLM failures in long-horizon clinical assessment, acute problem detection, action recommendation, and red-flag identification.
-
Large Language Models Lack Temporal Awareness of Medical Knowledge
LLMs lack temporal awareness of medical knowledge, showing gradual performance decline on up-to-date facts, much lower accuracy on historical knowledge (25-54% relative), and inconsistent year-to-year predictions.
-
MedMeta: A Benchmark for LLMs in Synthesizing Meta-Analysis Conclusion from Medical Studies
MedMeta benchmark shows LLMs synthesize medical meta-analysis conclusions better with provided abstracts than from parameters alone, yet score only ~2.7/5 and fail to reject negated evidence.
-
MediQAl: A French Medical Question Answering Dataset for Knowledge and Reasoning Evaluation
MediQAl is a new French medical QA benchmark with 32k exam-sourced questions in three formats and cognitive labels, evaluated on 14 LLMs to reveal gaps between factual recall and reasoning performance.
-
Same Evidence, Different Answer: Auditing Order Sensitivity in Multimodal Large Language Models
All 18 audited MLLMs exhibit order sensitivity with per-facet flip rates of 24-50%, exceeding same-order decoder noise.
-
CheXpercept: A Benchmark for Evaluating Expert-Level Lesion Perception in Chest X-rays
CheXpercept is a sequential multi-level perception benchmark showing VLMs perform adequately only on coarse lesion detection in chest X-rays while degrading sharply on finer tasks, with medical VLMs offering no advant...
-
Experience Makes Skillful: Enabling Generalizable Medical Agent Reasoning via Self-Evolving Skill Memory
SkeMex distills agent trajectories into value-aware skills organized in general/task/action branches and evolves them via a closed-loop Read-Write-Assess-Govern process, outperforming prior memory agents on clinical tasks.
-
Evaluating Large Language Models in Dynamic Clinical Decision-Making with Standardized Patient Cases
MedSP1000 benchmark shows top LLMs complete at most 60.4% of expert rubric items during multi-turn standardized patient simulations.
-
DDX-TRACE: A Benchmark for Medical Diagnostic Trajectories in VLMs
DDX-TRACE is a physician-adjudicated benchmark for evaluating VLMs on evidence-supported diagnostic trajectories rather than final answers alone in multimodal neuroradiology.
-
Fully Open Meditron: An Auditable Pipeline for Clinical LLMs
Presents the first fully open pipeline for clinical LLMs that unifies eight public QA datasets with clinician-vetted synthetic data from guidelines and vignettes, achieving improved performance on medical benchmarks w...
-
AgentPSO: Evolving Agent Reasoning Skill via Multi-agent Particle Swarm Optimization
AgentPSO evolves reusable multi-agent reasoning skills via PSO-inspired natural-language updates, outperforming static agents and test-time multi-agent baselines on math and general reasoning tasks with cross-benchmar...
-
Green Shielding: A User-Centric Approach Towards Trustworthy AI
Green Shielding introduces CUE criteria and the HCM-Dx benchmark to demonstrate that routine prompt variations systematically alter LLM diagnostic behavior along clinically relevant dimensions, producing Pareto-like t...
-
Token-Sparse Medical Multimodal Reasoning via Dual-Stream Reinforcement Learning
ViToS uses dual-stream RL with cross-feedback optimization to prune medical image tokens to 77% length while reporting 108.27% and 104.16% relative performance on two 7B VLMs across seven benchmarks.
-
Reasoning Quality Emerges Early: Data Curation for Reasoning Models
A token-efficient method to curate high-quality reasoning SFT data using early loss patterns from perturbed checkpoints outperforms baselines on medical and math datasets.
-
MMGist: A Comprehensive Multimodal Benchmark for 2027
MMGist filters 23,250 items from 18 benchmarks down to 7,262 using three-stage pipeline, preserving model rankings (Spearman ρ=0.98) while cutting items 69% and raising discrimination 78%.
-
Measuring Epistemic Resilience of LLMs Under Misleading Medical Context
LLMs drop from 71.1% to 38.0% accuracy on medical questions when misleading context is injected, measured via new MedMisBench benchmark with 10,932 items.
-
Beyond English benchmarks: clinical llm evaluation in Brazilian Portuguese
Creates the first bilingual clinical benchmark from Brazilian cases and reports that English performance advantage exists only in diagnosis retrieval, disappearing in the other three tasks.
-
EHRBench: An Automated and Reliable EHR-based Benchmark for Clinical Decision Making with LLMs
EHRBench uses an EHR-LLM-KB pipeline to automatically create 960,067 reliable QA items spanning diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis for large-scale LLM evaluation in clinical decision making.
-
Single-Rollout Hidden-State Dynamics for Training-Free RLVR Data Selection
SHIFT selects compact RLVR training subsets using the magnitude of hidden-state change from a single inference rollout plus quality-weighted farthest-first coverage, outperforming training-free baselines on math reaso...
-
ClinSeekAgent: Automating Multimodal Evidence Seeking for Agentic Clinical Reasoning
ClinSeekAgent automates active multimodal evidence seeking for clinical reasoning, improving LLM performance on raw EHR and CXR tasks while enabling distillation into smaller models.
-
CHI-Bench: Can AI Agents Automate End-to-End, Long-Horizon, Policy-Rich Healthcare Workflows?
CHI-Bench shows current AI agents achieve at most 28% success on long-horizon healthcare workflows that require dense policy adherence, multi-role handoffs, and multi-turn interactions.
-
Verification Mirage: Mapping the Reliability Boundary of Self-Verification in Medical VQA
Self-verification in medical VQA creates a verification mirage where verifiers exhibit high error and agreement bias on wrong answers, with reliability strongly conditioned on task type.
-
CLR-voyance: Reinforcing Open-Ended Reasoning for Inpatient Clinical Decision Support with Outcome-Aware Rubrics
CLR-voyance reformulates inpatient reasoning as POMDP with clinician-validated outcome rubrics, yielding an 8B model that outperforms larger frontier models on the authors' new benchmark.
-
AgentPSO: Evolving Agent Reasoning Skill via Multi-agent Particle Swarm Optimization
AgentPSO applies a particle-swarm-inspired update rule to evolve natural-language reasoning skills across multiple LLM agents, yielding gains over static and test-time multi-agent baselines with cross-benchmark transfer.
-
MedSynapse-V: Bridging Visual Perception and Clinical Intuition via Latent Memory Evolution
MedSynapse-V evolves latent diagnostic memories via meta queries, causal counterfactual refinement with RL, and dual-branch memory transition to outperform prior medical VLM methods in diagnostic accuracy.
-
MedSynapse-V: Bridging Visual Perception and Clinical Intuition via Latent Memory Evolution
MedSynapse-V proposes meta-query prior memorization, causal counterfactual refinement via RL, and dual-branch memory transition to evolve implicit diagnostic memories in medical VLMs and boost accuracy over chain-of-t...
-
Evaluation-driven Scaling for Scientific Discovery
SimpleTES scales test-time evaluation in LLMs to discover state-of-the-art solutions on 21 scientific problems across six domains, outperforming frontier models and optimization pipelines with examples like 2x faster ...
-
HEALing Entropy Collapse: Enhancing Exploration in Few-Shot RLVR via Hybrid-Domain Entropy Dynamics Alignment
HEAL mitigates entropy collapse in few-shot RLVR by selectively adding general-domain data and aligning trajectory-level entropy dynamics, matching full-shot performance with 32 target samples.
-
MedRCube: A Multidimensional Framework for Fine-Grained and In-Depth Evaluation of MLLMs in Medical Imaging
MedRCube is a new fine-grained evaluation framework that benchmarks 33 MLLMs on medical imaging, ranks Lingshu-32B highest, and finds a significant positive link between shortcut behaviors and diagnostic performance.
-
MedVerse: Efficient and Reliable Medical Reasoning via DAG-Structured Parallel Execution
MedVerse structures medical reasoning as a Petri-net DAG for parallel LLM execution, delivering up to 8.9% gains on general models plus 1.3x lower latency and 1.7x higher throughput versus specialized medical LLMs.
-
FaithMed: Training LLMs For Faithful Evidence-Based Medical Reasoning
FaithMed applies reinforcement learning with process-level rewards derived from evidence-based medicine rubrics to improve both task performance and reasoning faithfulness in medical LLMs.
-
Latent Confidence Alignment for LLM Self-Assessment
LCAE is introduced as a Rasch-model metric that aligns LLM self-reported confidence with latent error probability derived from ability and item difficulty, shown to improve calibration on a medical dataset across 20 models.
-
Trade-offs in Medical LLM Adaptation: An Empirical Study in French QA
Empirical comparison across model families finds SFT often sufficient for MCQA while CPT aids OEQA metrics in French medical LLM adaptation, with cross-lingual transfer observed.
-
Test-Time Scaling in Multimodal Foundation Models: A Comprehensive Survey of Generation and Reasoning
A survey of test-time scaling for multimodal foundation models that introduces a three-way taxonomy of sampling, feedback, and search approaches along with applications and benchmarks.
-
Characterize Then Distill: Mechanistic Reasoning in Large Output Spaces
Reasoning in large output spaces proceeds via shortlisting then fine-grained reasoning; this characterization enables a mechanistic distillation strategy that outperforms standard distillation.
-
Overview of the ClinicalSkillQA 2026 Shared Task on Continuous Perception and Procedural Reasoning in Clinical Skill Assessment
Overview of the ClinicalSkillQA 2026 shared task that tests AI on reordering clinical skill video frames and producing workflow-grounded rationales, with 7 teams participating and models showing difficulties in percep...
-
C-MIG: Multi-view Information Gain-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Clinical Diagnosis Reasoning
C-MIG uses multi-view information gain from retrieved documents and refinements to supervise RAG-RL for clinical diagnosis, claiming top performance on four medical benchmarks.
-
PathoSage: Towards Multi-Source Evidence Adjudication in Pathology via Experience-Aware Agentic Workflow
PathoSage is a three-stage framework using Structured Evidence Deliberation and a Beta-Bernoulli experience system to improve patch-level pathology reasoning by mitigating hallucinations and tool conflicts.
-
Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Post-Discharge Clinical Action Extraction
LLMs match or beat supervised BERT models on detecting whether a discharge note contains an actionable clinical task but trail on classifying the exact type of action, pointing to the need for datasets that explain wh...
-
MedSynapse-V: Bridging Visual Perception and Clinical Intuition via Latent Memory Evolution
MedSynapse-V proposes a latent diagnostic memory evolution framework using Meta Query, Causal Counterfactual Refinement, and Intrinsic Memory Transition to improve medical VLM diagnostic accuracy over chain-of-thought...
-
MedLVR: Latent Visual Reasoning for Reliable Medical Visual Question Answering
MedLVR interleaves latent visual reasoning segments in autoregressive decoding and uses two-stage training to raise average medical VQA accuracy from 48.3% to 53.4% over a Qwen2.5-VL-7B backbone on OmniMedVQA and five...
-
Measuring Competency, Not Performance: Item-Aware Evaluation Across Medical Benchmarks
MedIRT applies Item Response Theory to medical LLM benchmarks to separate latent competency from item difficulty and discrimination, producing more stable rankings and revealing domain heterogeneity than accuracy alone.
-
UniReason-Med: A Shared Grounded Reasoning Interface for 2D-to-3D Transfer in Medical VQA
UniReason-Med introduces a unified framework for 2D and 3D medical VQA with shared grounded reasoning, trained on a 220K dataset, claiming that joint 2D+3D supervision improves 3D performance over 3D-only training.
-
MedSynapse-V: Bridging Visual Perception and Clinical Intuition via Latent Memory Evolution
MedSynapse-V proposes a latent memory evolution framework with meta-query prior retrieval, causal counterfactual refinement via RL, and intrinsic memory transition to improve diagnostic accuracy over chain-of-thought ...
-
MedGemma 1.5 Technical Report
MedGemma 1.5 4B reports absolute gains of 11% on 3D MRI classification, 3% on 3D CT, 47% macro F1 on pathology slides, 35% IoU on anatomical localization, and 5-22% on clinical QA tasks over MedGemma 1.
-
MedXIAOHE: A Comprehensive Recipe for Building Medical MLLMs
MedXIAOHE is a medical MLLM that claims state-of-the-art benchmark performance through specialized pretraining to cover long-tail diseases and RL-based reasoning training.
-
EXAONE 4.5 Technical Report
EXAONE 4.5 is a new open-weight multimodal model that matches general benchmarks and outperforms similar-scale models on document understanding and Korean contextual reasoning.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:268232499. Ben Abacha, A., Hasan, S. A., Datla, V . V ., Demner- Fushman, D., and M ¨uller, H. Vqa-med: Overview of the medical visual question answering task at imageclef
-
[2]
HuatuoGPT-o1, Towards Medical Complex Reasoning with LLMs
In Proceedings of CLEF (Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum) 2019 Working Notes. 9-12 Septem- ber 2019, 2019. Cai, Z., Cao, M., Chen, H., Chen, K., Chen, K., Chen, X., Chen, X., Chen, Z., Chen, Z., Chu, P., Dong, X., Duan, H., Fan, Q., Fei, Z., Gao, Y ., Ge, J., Gu, C., Gu, Y ., Gui, T., Guo, A., Guo, Q., He, C., Hu, Y ., Huang, T., Jiang, T., Jia...
work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
-
[3]
The reduction was successful, as indicated by follow-up x-rays
Injury and Reduction: The man had a shoulder injury, likely a dislocation, based on initial x-rays and description. The reduction was successful, as indicated by follow-up x-rays
-
[4]
Symptoms Post-Reduction: After 10 days, the patient demonstrates an inability to abduct the shoulder
-
[5]
Common Cause of Inability to Abduct: Injury to the axillary nerve can cause an inability to abduct the shoulder, as it innervates the deltoid muscle
-
[6]
Most Appropriate Diagnostic Test: Electromyography (EMG) is often used to assess the function of muscles and nerves. If there is a suspicion of nerve injury, such as the axillary nerve in this case, an EMG would be helpful in confirming nerve dysfunction or damage. Considering the options: (A) CT-angiogram of the affected extremity would assess vascular i...
-
[7]
Heart Rate: The patient has a heart rate of 140 beats per minute, which indicates tachycardia
-
[8]
ECG Analysis: The ECG shows an irregularly irregular rhythm. There are no distinct P waves visible before each QRS complex; instead, there is a disorganized electrical activity, which is typical of fibrillatory waves
-
[9]
Differential Diagnosis: (A) Atrial flutter: Typically gives a “saw-tooth” pattern and usually has a more regular rhythm. (B) Multifocal atrial tachycardia (MAT): Characterized by an irregular rhythm with at least three different P wave morphologies which isn’t apparent here. (C) Atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response: Characterized by an irre...
-
[10]
Post-Surgical Context: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is relatively common after cardiac surgery, such as coronary artery bypass grafting, due to inflammation, electrolyte imbalances, and other stressors on the heart. Considering the irregularly irregular rhythm and absence of distinct P waves, the most probable diagnosis is: (C) Atrial fibrillation with rapid ...
-
[11]
Analysis: The above response fails to fully grasp the question’s implications in several ways
They also mask typical warning signs of hypoglycemia (e.g., palpitations or tremors), which may lead to unrecognized or prolonged hypoglycemic episodes. Analysis: The above response fails to fully grasp the question’s implications in several ways. For the incorrect answer (G) Atenolol, the model generally states that some beta-blockers reduce glycogenolys...
-
[12]
Age-related sleep changes: The patient is 69 years old. Aging is associated with alterations in sleep architecture, which may lead to reductions in total sleep duration, slow-wave (deep) sleep, and sleep efficiency. Older adults often feel less refreshed upon waking, even when sleep appears otherwise normal
-
[13]
His sleep appears peaceful, and he experiences no disruptive symptoms such as snoring or awakenings
Patient’s sleep specifics: He now sleeps 7 hours and wakes feeling less refreshed compared to his younger years when sleeping 9 hours. His sleep appears peaceful, and he experiences no disruptive symptoms such as snoring or awakenings
-
[14]
Ruling out other causes: Good management of hypertension and diabetes, normal vitals, a well-rounded active lifestyle, and no reported fatigue or significant tiredness suggest no acute medical condition contributing to his symptoms
-
[15]
This can result in less restorative sleep and a less refreshed feeling upon waking
Physiological changes associated with aging: Aging often leads to a decrease in growth hormone, which is secreted primarily during slow-wave sleep and stimulates restorative processes during sleep. This can result in less restorative sleep and a less refreshed feeling upon waking
-
[16]
Other options to consider: Decreased melatonin (option F): Melatonin levels decline with age, but melatonin primarily regulates sleep initiation and circadian rhythm rather than sleep quality or restoration. Altered circadian rhythm proteins (option D): Circadian changes occur with aging, but his symptoms are more closely linked to sleep restoration rathe...
-
[17]
**Language Rewriting**: Use different expressions and sentence structures that are equivalent in meaning to the original.,→
-
[18]
**Information Restructuring**: Alter the order that information is presented in the original question without disrupting the logical coherence of the question.,→ ### General Requirements
-
[19]
**Maintain the core content:** Ensure that the rephrased question retains the core content, reasoning logic, and correct answer of the original question.,→
-
[20]
Rigorously ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity
**Ensure a professional language style:** Maintain a professional, formal, and clear language style similar to the original question. Rigorously ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity. Feel free to copy parts of the original question if alternative appropriate phrasing is not possible. ,→ ,→ ,→
-
[21]
Do not change, add, or delete any factual information
**Maintain factual consistency:** Ensure that the rewritten question retains every piece of information in the original. Do not change, add, or delete any factual information. ,→ ,→
-
[22]
Pay special attention to keep any tabular data in completely the same format as the original
**Imitate original formatting:** Keep any special formatting in the original question unchanged, especially regarding structured data presentation. Pay special attention to keep any tabular data in completely the same format as the original. ,→ ,→
-
[23]
Answer Choices: (A) [Option A] (B) [Option B]
**Final output format:** Ensure that the options section of the question remains unchanged and the format remains as "Answer Choices: (A) [Option A] (B) [Option B] ...". Only output the rephrased question. Do not include any additional information or explanations. ,→ ,→ ,→ {demonstrations} ### Input **Original Question:** {question} **Correct Answer:** {l...
-
[24]
**Consider Errorneous Perspectives:** Include distractors that interpret key information in the question incorrectly.,→
-
[25]
**Leverage Common Misconceptions:** Consider designing distractors leveraging common errors or medical concepts that are frequently confused.,→
-
[26]
**Logical Misdirection:** Introduce distractors grounded in logical reasoning that is seemingly plausible but incorrect.,→ ### General Requirements
-
[27]
They should be clear, concise, and professionally worded
**Maintain Consistency:** Ensure that the generated new options match the original options in terms of length, structure, word count, and grammatical form. They should be clear, concise, and professionally worded. ,→ ,→
-
[28]
**Avoid Oversimplified Distractors:** Do not include options that can be easily dismissed based on intuition or surface-level analysis.,→
-
[29]
Avoid options that are overtly illogical or unsupported.,→
**Ensure High Plausibility:** Maintain the plausibility of each generated option. Avoid options that are overtly illogical or unsupported.,→
-
[30]
Answer Choices: (A) [Option A] (B) [Option B]
**Final Format:** Present the original question and options, followed by the **{generate_num}** additional options. Ensure that the generated options follow the same format as the original: "Answer Choices: (A) [Option A] (B) [Option B] ...". Do not output anything after the options. ,→ ,→ ,→ {demonstrations} ### Input **Original Question:** {question} **...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.