Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42389245›Full record

ArticleArXiv2026

MedHopQA: A Disease-Centered Multi-Hop Reasoning Benchmark and Evaluation Framework for LLM-Based Biomedical Question Answering.

Rezarta Islamaj, Robert Leaman, Joey Chan, Nicholas Wan, Qiao Jin, Natalie Xie, John Wilbur, Shubo Tian, Lana Yeganova, Po-Ting Lai and 6 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in ArXiv, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Rezarta IslamajNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Robert LeamanNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Joey ChanUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Computer Science, Urbana, IL, US.
Nicholas WanUniversity of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, US.
Qiao JinNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Natalie XieNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
John WilburNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Shubo TianNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Lana YeganovaNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Po-Ting LaiNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Chih-Hsuan WeiNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Yifan YangNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Yao GeNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Qingqing ZhuNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Zhizheng WangNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.
Zhiyong LuNational Library of Medicine, Division of Intramural Research, Bethesda, MD, US.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in the biomedical domain requires benchmarks that can distinguish genuine reasoning from pattern matching and that remain discriminative as model capabilities improve. Existing biomedical question answering (QA) benchmarks are limited in this respect: multiple-choice formats allow models to succeed by answer elimination rather than inference, and widely circulated exam-style datasets are subject to performance saturation and training data contamination. Multi-hop reasoning. i.e., the ability to integrate information across multiple sources to derive an answer, is central to clinically meaningful tasks such as diagnosis support, literature-based discovery, and hypothesis generation, yet remains underrepresented in current biomedical QA benchmarks. We present MedHopQA, a disease-centered multi-hop reasoning benchmark of 1,000 expert-curated question-answer pairs introduced as a shared task at BioCreative IX. Each question requires synthesis of information across two distinct Wikipedia articles, and answers are provided in open-ended free-text format rather than as multiple-choice selections. Gold annotations are augmented with ontology-grounded synonym sets (MONDO, NCBI Gene, NCBI Taxonomy) to support both lexical and concept-level evaluation. The dataset was constructed through a multi-stage human-AI pipeline combining structured human annotation, triage, iterative verification, and LLM-as-a-judge validation. To reduce leaderboard gaming and contamination risk, the 1,000 scored questions are embedded within a publicly downloadable set of 10,000 questions, with answers withheld, on a CodaBench leaderboard. Evaluation of four frontier LLMs under a zero-shot setting (GPT-5.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and GPT-4o) reveals performance variation across answer types, with overall accuracy ranging from 66.3% to 83.4%. Performance is strongest on chemical and anatomical questions and most variable on disease and gene/protein categories, where fine-grained semantic discrimination is required. MedHopQA provides both a benchmark and a reusable framework for constructing future biomedical QA datasets that prioritize compositional reasoning, saturation resistance, and contamination mitigation as design constraints.

Indexed as

benchmark evaluationbiomedical NLPLLM-as-a-judgemulti-hop question answeringtraining data contamination

Identifiers

PMID42389245
PMCPMC13317653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.