Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41565976›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026

HealthContradict: Evaluating biomedical knowledge conflicts in language models.

Boya Zhang, Alban Bornet, Rui Yang, Nan Liu, Douglas Teodoro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Boya ZhangFaculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. boya.zhang@unige.ch.
Alban BornetFaculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Rui YangDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Nan LiuDepartment of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Douglas TeodoroFaculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

Interreg VI France-Suisse 2021-2027, Synergie no. 20510
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How do language models use contextual information to answer health questions? How are their responses impacted by conflicting contexts? We assess the ability of language models to reason over long, conflicting biomedical contexts using HealthContradict, an expert-verified dataset comprising 920 unique instances, each consisting of a health-related question, a factual answer supported by scientific evidence, and two documents presenting contradictory stances. We consider several prompt settings, including correct, incorrect or contradictory context, and measure their impact on model outputs. Compared to existing medical question-answering evaluation benchmarks, HealthContradict provides greater distinctions of language models' contextual reasoning capabilities. Our experiments show that the strength of fine-tuned biomedical language models lies not only in their parametric knowledge from pretraining, but also in their ability to exploit correct context while resisting incorrect context.

Identifiers

PMID41565976
PMCPMC12901028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.