Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Few shot chain-of-thought driven reasoning to prompt LLMs for open ended medical question answering

Saeel Sandeep Nachane, Ojas Gramopadhye, Prateek Chanda, Ganesh Ramakrishnan, Kshitij Sharad Jadhav, Yatin Nandwani, Dinesh Raghu, Sachindra Joshi · Mar 7, 2024 · Citations: 0

Expert Verification Medicine
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (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

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a modified version of the MedQA-USMLE dataset, named MEDQA-OPEN, which contains open-ended medical questions without options to mimic clinical scenarios, along with clinician-approved reasoned answers. Additionally, we implement a prompt driven by Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning, CLINICR, to mirror the prospective process of incremental reasoning, reaching a correct response to medical questions. We empirically demonstrate how CLINICR outperforms the state-of-the-art 5-shot CoT-based prompt (Liévin et al., 2022). We also present an approach that mirrors real-life clinical practice by first exploring multiple differential diagnoses through MCQ-CLINICR and subsequently narrowing down to a final diagnosis using MCQ-ELIMINATIVE. Finally, emphasizing the importance of response verification in medical settings, we utilize a reward model mechanism, replacing the elimination process performed by MCQ-ELIMINATIVE.

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.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

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

Background context only.

Main weakness

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

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

40/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

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

partial

Expert Verification

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"In this paper, we propose a modified version of the MedQA-USMLE dataset, named MEDQA-OPEN, which contains open-ended medical questions without options to mimic clinical scenarios, along with clinician-approved reasoned answers."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"In this paper, we propose a modified version of the MedQA-USMLE dataset, named MEDQA-OPEN, which contains open-ended medical questions without options to mimic clinical scenarios, along with clinician-approved reasoned answers."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"In this paper, we propose a modified version of the MedQA-USMLE dataset, named MEDQA-OPEN, which contains open-ended medical questions without options to mimic clinical scenarios, along with clinician-approved reasoned answers."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"In this paper, we propose a modified version of the MedQA-USMLE dataset, named MEDQA-OPEN, which contains open-ended medical questions without options to mimic clinical scenarios, along with clinician-approved reasoned answers."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"In this paper, we propose a modified version of the MedQA-USMLE dataset, named MEDQA-OPEN, which contains open-ended medical questions without options to mimic clinical scenarios, along with clinician-approved reasoned answers."

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"In this paper, we propose a modified version of the MedQA-USMLE dataset, named MEDQA-OPEN, which contains open-ended medical questions without options to mimic clinical scenarios, along with clinician-approved reasoned answers."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Expert Verification
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Expertise required: Medicine

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • 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

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

In this paper, we propose a modified version of the MedQA-USMLE dataset, named MEDQA-OPEN, which contains open-ended medical questions without options to mimic clinical scenarios, along with clinician-approved reasoned answers.

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

Key Takeaways

  • In this paper, we propose a modified version of the MedQA-USMLE dataset, named MEDQA-OPEN, which contains open-ended medical questions without options to mimic clinical scenarios, along with clinician-approved reasoned answers.
  • Additionally, we implement a prompt driven by Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning, CLINICR, to mirror the prospective process of incremental reasoning, reaching a correct response to medical questions.
  • We empirically demonstrate how CLINICR outperforms the state-of-the-art 5-shot CoT-based prompt (Liévin et al., 2022).

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.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • In this paper, we propose a modified version of the MedQA-USMLE dataset, named MEDQA-OPEN, which contains open-ended medical questions without options to mimic clinical scenarios, along with clinician-approved reasoned answers.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Expert Verification

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • 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.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

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