Back to Home

Request Correction

Use this form to request corrections to the paper metadata. Select the fields that need correction and provide the correct information.

Correction Guidelines

  1. Click the edit button next to a field to report a correction.
  2. Fill in the suggested correction value for each field you want to correct.
  3. Provide your name and email so we can contact you if needed.

Paper Information

lrec2026-ws-cl4health-23

Overview of the ArchEHR-QA 2026 Shared Task on Grounded Question Answering from Electronic Health Records

Paper Fields

Click the edit button next to a field to report a correction.

Title

Overview of the ArchEHR-QA 2026 Shared Task on Grounded Question Answering from Electronic Health Records

Abstract

We present an overview of the ArchEHR-QA 2026 Shared Task on grounded question answering from electronic health records (EHRs), organized at the CL4Health Workshop at LREC 2026. The 2026 task decomposes grounded EHR question answering (QA) into four complementary subtasks: question interpretation, evidence identification, answer generation, and evidence alignment. We evaluated submitted systems for the text-generation subtasks (question interpretation and answer generation) using lexical, semantic, and grounding-sensitive automatic metrics, and for the evidence-centric subtasks (evidence identification and evidence alignment) using precision, recall, and F1. The shared task received 198 submitted runs from 43 teams, and 17 teams additionally provided system descriptions for this overview. The highest-ranked systems differed across subtasks, and gains over the organizer baseline were largest on the evidence-centric subtasks. Across submitted system descriptions, prompt-based large language model (LLM) pipelines were dominant, whereas task-specific fine-tuning was rare; retrieval, self-consistency, and ensembling were especially common in the strongest evidence-centric systems. In this paper, we describe the task design, data, evaluation protocol, baselines, participation, official results, and common system characteristics, and discuss implications for developing clinically faithful and transparent QA systems.


Authors

Expand an author to correct their information. Use the remove button to request author removal, or add a new author.


PDF Attachment

You may attach a PDF as a corrected version of the paper. Max file size: 10MB. Only PDF files are accepted.

Drag & drop a PDF here, or click to select

Your Information

Author Declaration *

Select at least one field to correct using the edit buttons above.