Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42389251›Full record

ArticleArXiv2026

Overview of the MedHopQA track at BioCreative IX: track description, participation and evaluation of systems for multi-hop medical question answering.

Rezarta Islamaj, Joey Chan, Robert Leaman, Jongmyung Jung, Hyeongsoon Hwang, Quoc-An Nguyen, Hoang-Quynh Le, Harikrishnan Gurushankar Saisudha, Ganesh Chandrasekar, Rustam R Taktashov 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

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

16 authors.

Rezarta IslamajNational Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), MD, 20894, Bethesda, USA.
Joey ChanNational Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), MD, 20894, Bethesda, USA.
Robert LeamanNational Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), MD, 20894, Bethesda, USA.
Jongmyung JungKorea University.
Hyeongsoon HwangKorea University.
Quoc-An NguyenVNU University of Engineering and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Hoang-Quynh LeVNU University of Engineering and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Harikrishnan Gurushankar SaisudhaConcordia University, Montreal, QC, CA.
Ganesh ChandrasekarConcordia University, Montreal, QC, CA.
Rustam R TaktashovInstitute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 10 bld. 8, Pogodinskaya str., 119121 Moscow, Russia.
Nadezhda Yu BizyukovaInstitute of Biomedical Chemistry (IBMC), 10 bld. 8, Pogodinskaya str., 119121 Moscow, Russia.
Sofia I R ConceiçãoLASIGE, Departamento de Informática, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal.
Paulo R C LopesLASIGE, Departamento de Informática, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal.
Reem Abdel SalamFaculty of Engineering, Computer Engineering Department Cairo University.
Mary AdewunmiMenzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, NT, Australia.
Zhiyong LuNational Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), MD, 20894, Bethesda, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-hop question answering (QA) remains a significant challenge in the biomedical domain, requiring systems to integrate information across multiple sources to answer complex questions. To address this problem, the BioCreative IX MedHopQA shared task was designed to benchmark in multi-hop reasoning for large language models (LLMs). We developed a novel dataset of 1,000 challenging QA pairs spanning diseases, genes, and chemicals, with particular emphasis on rare diseases. Each question was constructed to require two-hop reasoning through the integration of information from two distinct Wikipedia pages. The challenge attracted 48 submissions from 13 teams. Systems were evaluated using both surface string comparison and conceptual accuracy (MedCPT score). The results showed a substantial performance gap between baseline LLMs and enhanced systems. The top-ranked submission achieved an 89.30% F1 score on the MedCPT metric and an 87.30% exact match (EM) score, compared with 67.40% and 60.20%, respectively, for the zero-shot baseline. A central finding of the challenge was that retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and related retrieval-based strategies were critical for strong performance. In addition, concept-level evaluation improved answer assessment when correct responses differed in surface form. The MedHopQA dataset is publicly available to support continued progress in this important area. Challenge materials: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/research/bionlp/medhopqa and benchmark https://www.codabench.org/competitions/7609/.

Identifiers

PMID42389251
PMCPMC13317651

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.