PreprintCited by 17Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTopic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

K-QA: A Real-World Medical Q&A Benchmark

Open access
Manes, Itay, Ronn, Naama, Cohen, David, Ber, Ran Ilan, Horowitz-Kugler, Zehavi, Stanovsky, Gabriel·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Ensuring the accuracy of responses provided by large language models (LLMs) is crucial, particularly in clinical settings where incorrect information may directly impact patient health. To address this challenge, we construct K-QA, a dataset containing 1,212 patient questions originating from real-world conversations held on K Health (an AI-driven clinical platform). We employ a panel of in-house physicians to answer and manually decompose a subset of K-QA into self-contained statements. Additionally, we formulate two NLI-based evaluation metrics approximating recall and precision: (1) comprehensiveness, measuring the percentage of essential clinical information in the generated answer and (2) hallucination rate, measuring the number of statements from the physician-curated response contradicted by the LLM answer. Finally, we use K-QA along with these metrics to evaluate several state-of-the-art models, as well as the effect of in-context learning and medically-oriented augmented retrieval schemes developed by the authors. Our findings indicate that in-context learning improves the comprehensiveness of the models, and augmented retrieval is effective in reducing hallucinations. We make K-QA available to to the community to spur research into medically accurate NLP applications.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2401.14493

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Current evaluation of medical LLMs is anchored almost entirely on factual correctness against reference answers.

    “Current evaluation of these systems is anchored almost entirely on factual correctness against reference answers (Agarwal et al., 2026;Pandit et al., 2025;Manes et al., 2024;Wu et al., 2024;Pal et al., 2023).”

    From Medical Fine-Tuning Reshapes, Not Reduces, Patient-Facing AI Risk: A Rubric-Based, LLM-Judge Evaluation Framework (2026) · cites this paper as Manes et al., 2024

    The Introduction says most existing benchmarks use textbook questions with multiple-choice or span-based answers. Sections 1 and 4 describe K-QA’s own evaluation against physician-curated reference statements for comprehensiveness and hallucinations. These passages support the emphasis on reference-answer accuracy, but do not establish that medical LLM evaluation is anchored almost entirely on it. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The eight prompts below are representative examples drawn from the 200 real patient questions used in this study (K-QA benchmark; Manes et al. 2024), and they span the four topic domains present in the benchmark.

    “The eight prompts below are representative examples drawn from the 200 real patient questions used in this study (K-QA benchmark; Manes et al. 2024).They span the four topic domains present in the benchmark.”

    From Medical Fine-Tuning Reshapes, Not Reduces, Patient-Facing AI Risk: A Rubric-Based, LLM-Judge Evaluation Framework (2026) · cites this paper as Manes et al. 2024

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Asma Ben Abacha, Eugene Agichtein, Yuval Pinter, and Dina Demner-Fushman. 2017. Overview of the medical question answering task at trec 2017 liveqa. In TREC, pages 1-12.
  2. Roee Aharoni, Shashi Narayan, Joshua Maynez, Jonathan Herzig, Elizabeth Clark, and Mirella La- pata. 2023. Multilingual summarization with factual consistency evaluation. In Findings of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 3562-3591, Toronto, Canada. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI
  3. Rohan Anil, Andrew M Dai, Orhan Firat, Melvin John- son, Dmitry Lepikhin, Alexandre Passos, Siamak Shakeri, Emanuel Taropa, Paige Bailey, Zhifeng Chen, et al. 2023. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403. · arXiv
  4. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large anno- tated corpus for learning natural language inference. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing.
  5. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.
  6. John J Cherian, Isaac Gibbs, and Emmanuel J Can- dès. 2024. Large language model validity via enhanced conformal prediction methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.09714. · arXiv
  7. Ido Dagan, Oren Glickman, and Bernardo Magnini. 2005. The pascal recognising textual entailment chal- lenge. In Machine Learning Challenges Workshop.
  8. Dina Demner-Fushman, Yassine Mrabet, and Asma Ben Abacha. 2020. Consumer health information and question answering: helping consumers find an- swers to their health-related information needs. Jour- nal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 27(2):194-201.
  9. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. · arXiv
  10. Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agree- ment among many raters. Psychological bulletin, 76(5):378.
  11. Sebastian Gehrmann, Elizabeth Clark, and Thibault Sel- lam. 2023. Repairing the cracked foundation: A survey of obstacles in evaluation practices for gener- ated text. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 77:103-166.
  12. Tianyu Han, Lisa C Adams, Jens-Michalis Papaioan- nou, Paul Grundmann, Tom Oberhauser, Alexander Löser, Daniel Truhn, and Keno K Bressem. 2023. Medalpaca-an open-source collection of medical conversational ai models and training data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08247. · arXiv
  13. Or Honovich, Leshem Choshen, Roee Aharoni, Ella Neeman, Idan Szpektor, and Omri Abend. 2021. q 2 : Evaluating factual consistency in knowledge- grounded dialogues via question generation and ques- tion answering. In Proceedings of the 2021 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing, pages 7856-7870, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Men- sch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guil- laume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, et al. 2023. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825. · arXiv
  15. Di Jin, Eileen Pan, Nassim Oufattole, Wei-Hung Weng, Hanyi Fang, and Peter Szolovits. 2021. What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams. Ap- plied Sciences, 11(14):6421.
  16. Qiao Jin, Bhuwan Dhingra, Zhengping Liu, William W Cohen, and Xinghua Lu. 2019. Pubmedqa: A dataset for biomedical research question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06146. · arXiv
  17. Qiao Jin, Zheng Yuan, Guangzhi Xiong, Qianlan Yu, Huaiyuan Ying, Chuanqi Tan, Mosha Chen, Song- fang Huang, Xiaozhong Liu, and Sheng Yu. 2022. Biomedical question answering: a survey of ap- proaches and challenges. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55(2):1-36.
  18. Philippe Laban, Tobias Schnabel, Paul N. Bennett, and Marti A. Hearst. 2022. SummaC: Re-visiting NLI- based models for inconsistency detection in summa- rization. Transactions of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, 10:163-177. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Evelyn Kai-Yan Liu. 2022. Low-resource neural ma- chine translation: A case study of Cantonese. In Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on NLP for Simi- lar Languages, Varieties and Dialects, pages 28-40, Gyeongju, Republic of Korea. Association for Com- putational Linguistics.
  20. Sewon Min, Kalpesh Krishna, Xinxi Lyu, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Pang Wei Koh, Mohit Iyyer, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Factscore: Fine-grained atomic evaluation of factual precision in long form text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14251. · arXiv
  21. Ani Nenkova, Rebecca Passonneau, and Kathleen McK- eown. 2007. The pyramid method: Incorporating human content selection variation in summarization evaluation. ACM Transactions on Speech and Lan- guage Processing (TSLP), 4(2):4-es. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report.
  22. Ankit Pal, Logesh Kumar Umapathi, and Malaikannan Sankarasubbu. 2022. Medmcqa: A large-scale multi- subject multi-choice dataset for medical domain ques- tion answering. In Proceedings of the Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, volume 174 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 248-260. PMLR.
  23. Yotam Perlitz, Elron Bandel, Ariel Gera, Ofir Arviv, Liat Ein-Dor, Eyal Shnarch, Noam Slonim, Michal Shmueli-Scheuer, and Leshem Choshen. 2023. Ef- ficient benchmarking (of language models). ArXiv, abs/2308.11696. · arXiv
  24. Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, Sewon Min, Ludwig Schmidt, Noah A. Smith, and Mike Lewis. 2022. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models. ArXiv, abs/2210.03350. · arXiv
  25. David Rein, Betty Li Hou, Asa Cooper Stickland, Jackson Petty, Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Julien Di- rani, Julian Michael, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2023. Gpqa: A graduate-level google-proof q&a bench- mark. ArXiv, abs/2311.12022. · arXiv
  26. Max Savery, Asma Ben Abacha, Soumya Gayen, and Dina Demner-Fushman. 2020. Question-driven sum- marization of answers to consumer health questions. Scientific Data, 7(1):322.
  27. Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mah- davi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, et al. 2023. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature, 620(7972):172-180.
  28. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. · arXiv
  29. George Tsatsaronis, Georgios Balikas, Prodromos Malakasiotis, Ioannis Partalas, Matthias Zschunke, Michael R Alvers, Dirk Weissenborn, Anastasia Krithara, Sergios Petridis, Dimitris Polychronopou- los, et al. 2015. An overview of the bioasq large-scale biomedical semantic indexing and question answer- ing competition. BMC bioinformatics, 16(1):1-28.
  30. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits rea- soning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824-24837.
  31. Xiao Zhang, Ji Wu, Zhiyang He, Xien Liu, and Ying Su. 2018. Medical exam question answering with large- scale reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 32.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Manes, I., Ronn, N., Cohen, D., Ber, R. I., Horowitz-Kugler, Z., & Stanovsky, G.
Affiliations
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
277-294
OpenAlex
W4402683847
Cited by
17
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 1
FWCI
3.97
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing (BioNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
medical question answering, large language models, hallucination evaluation, patient questions, natural language inference, in-context learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review