PubMedQA accuracy
literatureLeaderboard
Macro F1 (option log-likelihood)
Unweighted mean of the per-answer F1 (yes, no, maybe) of the same zero-shot predictions, so the rare maybe class weighs as much as yes.
Best in the catalogue: 0.430 (the best visible result here, not a state of the art). Ranks are the server's: ties share a rank. A ≠ marks a row whose n differs from the board's usual n (500). Floors are trivial baselines scored on the same items, shown unranked.
| # | Model | Value | 95% CI | n | Source | Overlap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | bio-nlp/biogpt-large | 0.430 best | [0.401, 0.458] | 500 | reproduced | overlapTrain/test overlap declared by the evaluator: PubMed abstracts |
| 2 | bio-nlp/biomedlm | 0.280 | [0.255, 0.306] | 500 | reproduced | overlapTrain/test overlap declared by the evaluator: PubMed abstracts |
Protocol
What is measured. Whether a model can answer a biomedical research question with yes, no or maybe from the abstract that studied it, without the abstract's conclusion.
Data. PubMedQA PQA-L (Jin et al., EMNLP 2019): 1,000 questions derived
from PubMed article titles, each labelled by experts from the abstract
(552 yes, 338 no, 110 maybe), as published in qiaojin/PubMedQA
(config pqa_labeled). The authors' official split
(data/test_ground_truth.json of the pubmedqa GitHub repository, 500
pubids: 276 yes, 169 no, 55 maybe) is the test pool; the other 500 are the
train pool. The input is the question and the abstract's sections other
than its conclusion (context, the section texts joined by spaces); the
conclusion (long_answer) states the answer and is never shown.
Items. atlas-full-v1: the whole official test set, 500 questions
(276 yes, 169 no, 55 maybe). atlas-n100-v1: 100 test questions
stratified by answer (largest-remainder quotas, seed-hash rank inside each
answer: 55 yes, 34 no, 11 maybe). Either way the probe trains on all 500
train questions.
Test size. The leaderboard version is atlas-full-v1 on every
profile: the authors' whole test set of 500 questions. It is the set papers report on, and 400 more prompts cost minutes. The earlier atlas-n100-v1 (100 test items, drawn
as described above) stays frozen and its cells stay current; it is a
separate ranking, never mixed with the full one.
Zero-shot (accuracy_zero_shot, macro_f1_zero_shot; capability
score.options). A causal language model reads
Abstract: <context>\nQuestion: <question>\nAnswer: (the prompt of the
common evaluation harnesses) and scores each of " yes", " no", " maybe" as
a continuation (summed token log-probabilities); the most likely one is
the answer. The context is cut to its first 300 words (PubMedQA contexts
average about 200), and a prompt longer than the model's window is cut
from the left. No demonstration examples are given.
Probe (accuracy_probe, macro_f1_probe; capability
embed.text.pooled). Frozen embeddings (last layer, mean over tokens) of
Question: <question>\nContext: <context>, truncated by the encoder at its
own maximum length (the question comes first, so it always survives); a
multinomial logistic head is fit on the 500 train questions.
Uncertainty. 95 % bootstrap interval over test questions, 1,000 resamples stratified by answer.
Caveats. 55 maybe questions (11 in atlas-n100-v1) make the maybe
F1, and so macro F1, noisier than accuracy. Most hub language models were pretrained on PubMed abstracts, which
include these abstracts and their conclusions (BioGPT and BioMedLM report
PubMedQA fine-tuning results; their released checkpoints evaluated here
are the pretrained ones unless the model card says otherwise). Always
answering yes scores 0.55 accuracy on either test set (276 / 500, 55 / 100).
Data
pqa: hf_datasetqiaojin/PubMedQAat revision9001f2853fb87cab8d220904e0de81ac6973b318, licence mit, catalogued asbio-nlp/pubmedqatest-ids: urlhttps://raw.githubusercontent.com/pubmedqa/pubmedqa/1cbae8e92f72f20c8d3747cbb3bf5bc53554d997/data/test_ground_truth.json, licence mit, catalogued asbio-nlp/pubmedqa
Subset
- seed 20261006
- test: 100 item(s), stratified by label
- train: 500 item(s), stratified by label
- leaderboard version
atlas-full-v1on every profile: the whole eligible test pool (the sizes above define the n version) - results at
atlas-full-v1use subsetdda23642a2828bc1
Metrics
accuracy_zero_shot— Accuracy (option log-likelihood); protocol zero_shot; higher is better; range [0.0, 1.0]; 95% bootstrap CI, 1000 resamples, stratified by labelmacro_f1_zero_shot— Macro F1 (option log-likelihood); protocol zero_shot; higher is better; range [0.0, 1.0]; 95% bootstrap CI, 1000 resamples, stratified by labelaccuracy_probe— Accuracy (logistic probe); protocol probe; higher is better; range [0.0, 1.0]; 95% bootstrap CI, 1000 resamples, stratified by labelmacro_f1_probe— Macro F1 (logistic probe); protocol probe; higher is better; range [0.0, 1.0]; 95% bootstrap CI, 1000 resamples, stratified by label
Sample
The leaderboard (atlas-full-v1) scores the 500 official test questions
(100 in atlas-n100-v1). Three training questions, one per answer (input:
question and context;
expected output: the answer; the zero-shot prompt puts the same context
after Abstract: and the question after it):
| item_id | question | context (start) | answer |
|---|---|---|---|
pubmedqa-24964725 | Recovery Outcome Measures: Is There a Place for Culture, Attitudes, and Faith? | Utilization of the Recovery Knowledge Inventory (RKI) and Recovery Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ) in southeastern Australia raised questions about the RAQ, including links between attitudes, faith, and culture in supporting the recovery journey. … | yes |
pubmedqa-12068831 | Do nontriploid partial hydatidiform moles exist? | To study whether nontriploid partial hydatidiform moles truly exist. We conducted a reevaluation of pathology and ploidy in 19 putative nontriploid partial hydatidiform moles … 53% (10/19) were diploid nonpartial moles (initially pathologically misclassified) … | no |
pubmedqa-11296674 | Prostatic syndrome and pleural effusion: are they different diseases? | To report an uncommon association of prostate and lung cancer. The characteristics of both tumors, their association with tumors in other sites and the time of presentation are analyzed. … | maybe |