Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

mamabench and mamaretrieval: Benchmarks for Evaluating Medical Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Maternal, Neonatal, and Reproductive Health

Yi Ren · Jun 28, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics Medicine Rubric Rating
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

High trust

Use this as a practical starting point for protocol research, then validate against the original paper.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

High

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Medical question-answering benchmarks rarely cover the maternal, neonatal, child, and reproductive-health questions a nurse-midwife asks, and, to our knowledge, no public chunk-level relevance benchmark exists for maternal-health guideline retrieval. We release two benchmarks that fill these gaps. mamabench is a scope-filtered QA set of 25,949 items assembled from seven existing expert-authored sources across multiple-choice, short-answer, and rubric-graded tracks; to help users calibrate the LLM judge that scores the rubric track, we re-scope HealthBench's physician-labelled meta-evaluation to the domain. mamaretrieval pairs 3,185 clinical queries with graded (0-6) relevance labels over a 63,650-chunk maternal-health guideline corpus, using a decomposed rubric that distinguishes a chunk that answers a query from one merely on its topic. Three decisions shape both: assemble and filter expert sources rather than author questions, grade relevance rather than binarise it, and measure and disclose the limits of the labels -- scope-classifier agreement, a frontier-judge check, and a pooling-completeness audit -- rather than treat them as an oracle. A companion paper uses the benchmarks to evaluate a deployed on-device assistant; both are released openly for research.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

High

Usefulness score

65/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 80%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Rubric Rating

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"Medical question-answering benchmarks rarely cover the maternal, neonatal, child, and reproductive-health questions a nurse-midwife asks, and, to our knowledge, no public chunk-level relevance benchmark exists for maternal-health guideline retrieval."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Medical question-answering benchmarks rarely cover the maternal, neonatal, child, and reproductive-health questions a nurse-midwife asks, and, to our knowledge, no public chunk-level relevance benchmark exists for maternal-health guideline retrieval."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Medical question-answering benchmarks rarely cover the maternal, neonatal, child, and reproductive-health questions a nurse-midwife asks, and, to our knowledge, no public chunk-level relevance benchmark exists for maternal-health guideline retrieval."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

Mamabench, Mamaretrieval, Healthbench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"mamabench is a scope-filtered QA set of 25,949 items assembled from seven existing expert-authored sources across multiple-choice, short-answer, and rubric-graded tracks; to help users calibrate the LLM judge that scores the rubric track, we re-scope HealthBench's physician-labelled meta-evaluation to the domain."

Reported Metrics

strong

Relevance

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Medical question-answering benchmarks rarely cover the maternal, neonatal, child, and reproductive-health questions a nurse-midwife asks, and, to our knowledge, no public chunk-level relevance benchmark exists for maternal-health guideline retrieval."

Rater Population

strong

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"mamabench is a scope-filtered QA set of 25,949 items assembled from seven existing expert-authored sources across multiple-choice, short-answer, and rubric-graded tracks; to help users calibrate the LLM judge that scores the rubric track, we re-scope HealthBench's physician-labelled meta-evaluation to the domain."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Rubric Rating
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Unit of annotation: Multi Dim Rubric
  • Expertise required: Medicine

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: High
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

MamabenchMamaretrievalHealthbench

Reported Metrics

relevance

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Medical question-answering benchmarks rarely cover the maternal, neonatal, child, and reproductive-health questions a nurse-midwife asks, and, to our knowledge, no public chunk-level relevance benchmark exists for maternal-health guideline retrieval.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Medical question-answering benchmarks rarely cover the maternal, neonatal, child, and reproductive-health questions a nurse-midwife asks, and, to our knowledge, no public chunk-level relevance benchmark exists for maternal-health guideline retrieval.
  • We release two benchmarks that fill these gaps.
  • mamabench is a scope-filtered QA set of 25,949 items assembled from seven existing expert-authored sources across multiple-choice, short-answer, and rubric-graded tracks; to help users calibrate the LLM judge that scores the rubric track, we re-scope HealthBench's physician-labelled meta-evaluation to the domain.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Medical question-answering benchmarks rarely cover the maternal, neonatal, child, and reproductive-health questions a nurse-midwife asks, and, to our knowledge, no public chunk-level relevance benchmark exists for maternal-health guideline…
  • We release two benchmarks that fill these gaps.
  • mamabench is a scope-filtered QA set of 25,949 items assembled from seven existing expert-authored sources across multiple-choice, short-answer, and rubric-graded tracks; to help users calibrate the LLM judge that scores the rubric track,…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Medical question-answering benchmarks rarely cover the maternal, neonatal, child, and reproductive-health questions a nurse-midwife asks, and, to our knowledge, no public chunk-level relevance benchmark exists for maternal-health guideline…
  • We release two benchmarks that fill these gaps.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Rubric Rating

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Mamabench, Mamaretrieval, Healthbench

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: relevance

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.