Measuring Risk of Bias in Biomedical Reports: The RoBBR Benchmark

Systems that answer questions by reviewing the scientific literature are becoming increasingly feasible. To draw reliable conclusions, these systems should take into account the quality of available evidence, placing more weight on studies that use a valid methodology. We present a benchmark for measuring the methodological strength of biomedical papers, drawing on the risk-of-bias framework used for systematic reviews. The four benchmark tasks, drawn from more than 500 papers, cover the analysis of research study methodology, followed by evaluation of risk of bias in these studies. The benchmark contains 2000 expert-generated bias annotations, and a human-validated pipeline for fine-grained alignment with research paper content. We evaluate a range of large language models on the benchmark, and find that these models fall significantly short of expert-level performance. By providing a standardized tool for measuring judgments of study quality, the benchmark can help to guide systems that perform large-scale aggregation of scientific data.