Skip to content
← Back to explorer

EpiQAL: Benchmarking Large Language Models in Epidemiological Question Answering for Enhanced Alignment and Reasoning

Mingyang Wei, Dehai Min, Zewen Liu, Yuzhang Xie, Guanchen Wu, Ziyang Zhang, Carl Yang, Max S. Y. Lau, Qi He, Lu Cheng, Wei Jin · Jan 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

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

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Reliable epidemiological reasoning requires synthesizing study evidence to infer disease burden, transmission dynamics, and intervention effects at the population level. Existing medical question answering benchmarks primarily emphasize clinical knowledge or patient-level reasoning, yet few systematically evaluate evidence-grounded epidemiological inference. We present EpiQAL, the first diagnostic benchmark for epidemiological question answering across diverse diseases, comprising three subsets built from open-access literature. The three subsets progressively test factual recall, multi-step inference, and conclusion reconstruction under incomplete information, and are constructed through a quality-controlled pipeline combining taxonomy guidance, multi-model verification, and difficulty screening. Experiments on fourteen models spanning open-source and proprietary systems reveal that current LLMs show limited performance on epidemiological reasoning, with multi-step inference posing the greatest challenge. Model rankings shift across subsets, and scale alone does not predict success. Chain-of-Thought prompting benefits multi-step inference but yields mixed results elsewhere. EpiQAL provides fine-grained diagnostic signals for evidence-grounding, inferential reasoning, and conclusion reconstruction.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

25/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

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

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Reliable epidemiological reasoning requires synthesizing study evidence to infer disease burden, transmission dynamics, and intervention effects at the population level."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Reliable epidemiological reasoning requires synthesizing study evidence to infer disease burden, transmission dynamics, and intervention effects at the population level."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Reliable epidemiological reasoning requires synthesizing study evidence to infer disease burden, transmission dynamics, and intervention effects at the population level."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Reliable epidemiological reasoning requires synthesizing study evidence to infer disease burden, transmission dynamics, and intervention effects at the population level."

Reported Metrics

partial

Recall

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"The three subsets progressively test factual recall, multi-step inference, and conclusion reconstruction under incomplete information, and are constructed through a quality-controlled pipeline combining taxonomy guidance, multi-model verification, and difficulty screening."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Unit of annotation: Ranking (inferred)
  • Expertise required: Medicine

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

recall

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Reliable epidemiological reasoning requires synthesizing study evidence to infer disease burden, transmission dynamics, and intervention effects at the population level.

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

Key Takeaways

  • Reliable epidemiological reasoning requires synthesizing study evidence to infer disease burden, transmission dynamics, and intervention effects at the population level.
  • Existing medical question answering benchmarks primarily emphasize clinical knowledge or patient-level reasoning, yet few systematically evaluate evidence-grounded epidemiological inference.
  • We present EpiQAL, the first diagnostic benchmark for epidemiological question answering across diverse diseases, comprising three subsets built from open-access literature.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • 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.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Existing medical question answering benchmarks primarily emphasize clinical knowledge or patient-level reasoning, yet few systematically evaluate evidence-grounded epidemiological inference.
  • We present EpiQAL, the first diagnostic benchmark for epidemiological question answering across diverse diseases, comprising three subsets built from open-access literature.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Existing medical question answering benchmarks primarily emphasize clinical knowledge or patient-level reasoning, yet few systematically evaluate evidence-grounded epidemiological inference.
  • We present EpiQAL, the first diagnostic benchmark for epidemiological question answering across diverse diseases, comprising three subsets built from open-access literature.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: recall

Related Papers

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

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.