Evaluates large language models' ability to answer challenging medical multiple-choice questions and generate step-by-step clinical reasoning explanations. It probes both factual accuracy in clinical decision-making and the quality of model-generated rationales compared to expert-written references. Use when the user wants to benchmark on JAMA Clinical Challenge, Medbullets, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill medical-qa-explanation-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Medical Qa Explanation Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-medical-qa-explanation-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: medical-qa-explanation-eval
description: Evaluates large language models' ability to answer challenging medical multiple-choice questions and generate step-by-step clinical reasoning explanations. It probes both factual accuracy in clinical decision-making and the quality of model-generated rationales compared to expert-written references. Use when the user wants to benchmark on JAMA Clinical Challenge, Medbullets, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2402.18060
bibtex_key: chen2024benchmarking
confidence: high
---
# medical-qa-explanation-eval
> Benchmarking Large Language Models on Answering and Explaining Challenging Medical Questions — Chen et al. (2024) (arXiv:2402.18060, 2024)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates large language models' ability to answer challenging medical multiple-choice questions and generate step-by-step clinical reasoning explanations. It probes both factual accuracy in clinical decision-making and the quality of model-generated rationales compared to expert-written references.
## Datasets
- **JAMA Clinical Challenge** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Medbullets** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Computed as the proportion of model predictions that exactly match the ground truth answer choice.
- `ROUGE-L` — range: [0, 1]
- Computes the longest common subsequence overlap between model-generated explanations and reference (gold) explanations to measure surface-form similarity.
- `BERTScore` — range: [0, 1]
- Measures semantic similarity between model-generated and gold explanations using contextual embeddings from BERT.
- `BARTScore+` — range: [0, 1]
- Finetuned variant of BARTScore using CNN data to compute semantic similarity between generated and reference explanations.
- `BARTScore++` — range: [0, 1]
- Finetuned variant of BARTScore using CNN and paraphrase data to compute semantic similarity between generated and reference explanations.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Clinical case description, question, and multiple-choice answer options (X).
**Output**: Model-generated answer choice (Y), optionally preceded by step-by-step reasoning (R), or an explanation (R) given the input and gold answer (Y*).
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, gold_answers, explanations, gold_explanations):
acc = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold_answers) if p == g) / len(predictions)
rouge_l = rouge_l_score(explanations, gold_explanations)
bert = bertscore_f1(explanations, gold_explanations)
bart_plus = bartscore_score(explanations, gold_explanations, variant='CNN')
bart_plus_plus = bartscore_score(explanations, gold_explanations, variant='CNN+Para')
return {'accuracy': acc, 'ROUGE-L': rouge_l, 'BERTScore': bert, 'BARTScore+': bart_plus, 'BARTScore++': bart_plus_plus}
```
## Common pitfalls
- The evaluation uses three distinct prompting strategies (X→Y, X→RY, XY*→R) that drastically change the model's output format and reasoning process; results must be reported per strategy rather than aggregated.
- Explanation metrics (ROUGE-L, BERTScore, BARTScore variants) measure text similarity to gold references rather than clinical correctness or logical validity, which may not align with expert medical judgment.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We use accuracy (prediction compared to ground truth) to evaluate the predictions of each model. We explore several methods to evaluate model-generated explanations: ROUGE-L, BERTScore, and two finetuned variants of BARTScore—BARTScore+CNN (BARTScore+) and BARTScore+CNN+Para (BARTScore++). These metrics compute the surface-form or semantic similarities between model-generated explanations and reference (gold) explanations.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{chen2024benchmarking,
title={Benchmarking Large Language Models on Answering and Explaining Challenging Medical Questions},
author={Chen et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2402.18060}
}
```
- arXiv: 2402.18060
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!