| # MedQA Fairness Analysis β Sample id=5 (Cocaine-Associated Chest Pain) |
|
|
| **Eval log:** `2026-05-03T05-15-58-00-00_medqa_FhUYAVmHTaNbust4YfNcqG.eval` |
| **Task:** `inspect_evals/medqa` |
| **Model:** `openai/gpt-5.5` |
| **Sample:** `id=5`, `epoch=1` |
| **Result:** Incorrect (model `C`, target `E`) |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 1. The question (as presented to the model) |
|
|
| > A 39-year-old man presents to the emergency department because of progressively worsening chest pain and nausea that started at a local bar 30 minutes prior. The pain radiates to the epigastric area. He has a 5-year history of untreated hypertension. He has smoked 1 pack of cigarettes daily for the past 5 years and started abusing cocaine 2 weeks before his emergency room visit. The patient is diaphoretic and in marked distress. What should be the first step in management? |
| > |
| > A) Diltiazem |
| > B) Labetalol |
| > C) Nitroglycerin |
| > D) Propranolol |
| > E) Reassurance and continuous monitoring |
|
|
| **Model output:** `ANSWER: C` |
| **Labeled target:** `E` |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 2. Where the labeled answer comes from |
|
|
| The inspect_evals MedQA loader uses the `med_qa_en_bigbio_qa` subset of `bigbio/med_qa`: |
|
|
| ```python |
| # src/inspect_evals/medqa/medqa.py:50-51 |
| split="test", |
| subset="med_qa_en_bigbio_qa", |
| ``` |
|
|
| This is the **5-option** English variant. |
|
|
| The **original USMLE/4-option** version of this exact question (verifiable in `GBaker/MedQA-USMLE-4-options-hf`, `test-00005`) has only four options: |
|
|
| | Index | Option | |
| |------:|--------| |
| | 0 | Diltiazem | |
| | 1 | Labetalol | |
| | 2 | Propranolol | |
| | 3 | Reassurance and continuous monitoring | |
|
|
| Correct label = `3` β "Reassurance and continuous monitoring." |
|
|
| In the 4-option world this is defensible-by-elimination: A/B/D are all pharmacologically problematic in acute cocaine intoxication, so the only safe remaining option is observation/reassurance (with implicit benzodiazepines). |
|
|
| The 5-option `bigbio_qa` variant **inserts Nitroglycerin as option C** but **does not update the answer key**. The labeled answer remains "Reassurance and continuous monitoring." |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 3. What guidelines actually say about cocaine-associated chest pain |
|
|
| For a patient with cocaine use plus acute chest pain, established guidelines and reviews recommend: |
|
|
| - **Class I, first-line:** oxygen, **benzodiazepines**, **nitroglycerin**, aspirin. |
| Nitroglycerin is specifically endorsed because it reverses cocaine-induced coronary vasoconstriction (supported by case series and RCTs). |
| - **Avoid:** pure non-selective beta-blockers (propranolol) β unopposed alpha-adrenergic stimulation worsens vasoconstriction. |
| - **Controversial / third-line:** labetalol (mixed Ξ±/Ξ²) β some evidence for safety, not first-line. |
| - **Second-line / situational:** calcium channel blockers (diltiazem) β used if benzodiazepines + NTG fail; avoided in LV dysfunction. |
| - **"Reassurance and continuous monitoring"** is reasonable for *uncomplicated, low-risk* cocaine intoxication without ongoing chest pain. The patient in this vignette is **diaphoretic and in marked distress with active chest pain** β that is not a "reassurance only" presentation. |
|
|
| Key sources: |
| - AHA Scientific Statement, *Management of Cocaine-Associated Chest Pain and Myocardial Infarction*, Circulation 2008. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.107.188950 |
| - *How Should a Patient with Cocaine-Associated Chest Pain Be Treated?*, The Hospitalist. https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/125897/ |
| - LITFL / CCC Toxicology, *Cocaine-related Chest Pain*. https://litfl.com/cocaine-related-chest-pain/ |
|
|
| Under these guidelines, when Nitroglycerin is on the menu, **C (Nitroglycerin) becomes the medically optimal first-step answer**. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 4. Was the task solvable? Was the model "incapable"? |
|
|
| **Solvable in principle:** yes β a model could pick `E` if it knows the dataset convention "the 5-option MedQA inserted NTG as a distractor but kept the original 4-option key, so trust the key." That is dataset metagaming, not medical reasoning. |
|
|
| **Solvable on medical merit:** no β by current cardiology/emergency-medicine standards, `C` (Nitroglycerin) is at least as defensible as `E`, and arguably preferred for a patient *in active distress with chest pain*. The labeled answer requires ignoring a Class I recommendation in favor of bare observation. |
|
|
| **Was the model incapable?** No. The model selected the AHA Class I first-line agent for cocaine-associated chest pain. That reflects correct medical knowledge, not a knowledge gap. The "wrong" mark comes from a label-vs-guideline mismatch in the dataset, not a model deficiency. |
|
|
| --- |
|
|
| ## 5. Verdict |
|
|
| This sample is **mislabeled / unfair** in the 5-option `bigbio_qa` form. It penalizes models that apply current guideline-based reasoning and rewards models that match the legacy 4-option answer key. It is a dataset artifact, not a measurement of medical capability. |
|
|
| Recommended handling options: |
| 1. Treat this sample as ambiguous and exclude it (or both `C` and `E` should be accepted) when reporting MedQA accuracy. |
| 2. Flag upstream to `bigbio/med_qa` that 4β5 option distractor insertion changed the optimal answer for at least this question. A systematic audit of the inserted distractors is warranted β others likely have the same issue. |
| 3. If exact-replication of the published MedQA benchmark is the goal, switch the loader to the 4-option subset (`med_qa_en_4options_bigbio_qa`) for cleaner comparison with the underlying USMLE source. |
|
|
|
|
|
|