Delete query

query/finance/en/README_zh.md

@@ -1,55 +0,0 @@
-# ANSER 英文金融分析型检索 Benchmark
-
-本目录提供基于英文 SEC 财报、结构化财务事实和监管规则的分析型检索任务。
-
-## 数据概览
-
-| 文件 | 数量 | 任务范围 |
-|---|---:|---|
-| `descriptive.json` | 300 | 财务事实抽取、计算、统计与文本证据分析 |
-| `predictive.json` | 200 | 基于历史财报信息预测下一期指标或区间 |
-| `prescriptive.json` | 300 | 财务事实审计与监管规则适用判断 |
-
-## 任务与题目类型
-
-- 描述型包含 `numeric_fill`、`short_answer`、`multiple_choice`，以及 `statistic_sql`、`statistic_semantic`、`statistic_reasoning`。
-- 预测型包含 `multiple_choice`、`numeric_fill`、`short_answer`，要求根据历史信息作出有依据的预测。
-- 规范型包含 `FinAuditing`（100 条）和 `RegBench`（200 条），分别面向 XBRL 财务事实审计和 12 CFR Part 217 等规则推理。
-
-## 记录格式
-
-每条记录为一个 JSON 对象，统一包含：
-
-| 字段 | 含义 |
-|---|---|
-| `id` | 任务唯一标识 |
-| `type` | 题目类型；规范型使用 `FinAuditing` 或 `RegBench` |
-| `query` | 面向用户的英文问题 |
-| `instruction` | 回答范围、输出形式和证据要求 |
-| `evidence` | 申报、结构化事实、章节或规则证据 |
-| `ground_truth` | 标准答案，可为数字、选项或规范性结论 |
-
-## 标注与答案
-
-描述型答案通常是数值、计算结果、统计结论或基于财报文本的简短回答；预测型答案为预测选项、数值或简短判断，并保留实际结果作为核验依据；规范型答案包含结论、必要计算和适用规则。结构化字段、SQL 或规则元数据不随公开任务发布。
-
-## 检索来源与 evidence
-
-主要语料位于 `corpus/finance/en/`：
-
-- `companies.jsonl`、`filings.jsonl`：公司和 SEC 申报元数据；
-- `financial_facts.jsonl`：结构化财务指标；
-- `sections.jsonl`：申报章节文本；
-- `finance_reports.sqlite`、`audit_rules.sqlite`、`12_CFR_Part_217.sqlite`：数据库及审计、监管规则来源。
-
-描述型和预测型 evidence 通常通过 `accession` 对应申报、结构化事实或章节；预测任务还区分历史预测证据与实际结果证据；规范型 evidence 还包括规则段落或审计事实。
-
-## 评测方法
-
-- 检索：按 evidence 标识计算 Evidence Recall@K、命中率和排序质量。
-- 答案：数值任务使用精确或容差匹配，选择题使用选项准确率，文本和规范任务使用结构化字段、规则依据及答案一致性评测。
-- 预测任务应避免使用题目所要求预测时点之后的信息作为输入。
-
-## 使用说明
-
-任务文件整体为 JSON 数组。建议先按 `query` 和 `instruction` 检索 evidence，再结合对应语料字段作答。金融数据来自公开申报和规则材料，不构成投资、审计或法律意见。

query/finance/zh/README_zh.md

@@ -1,56 +0,0 @@
-# ANSER 中文金融分析型检索 Benchmark
-
-本目录提供基于中文上市公司财报、结构化财务字段和监管规则的分析型检索任务。
-
-## 数据概览
-
-| 文件 | 数量 | 任务范围 |
-|---|---:|---|
-| `descriptive.json` | 200 | 财务事实、趋势、筛选、排名和文本证据分析 |
-| `predictive.json` | 200 | 基于历史财报与经营信息预测下一期指标或区间 |
-| `prescriptive.json` | 50 | 结合公告事实和监管规则作规范性判断 |
-
-## 任务与题目类型
-
-- 描述型包含 `numeric_fact`、`multi_period_trend`、`change_detection`、`cross_section_screen`、`ranking`、`screening`、`mixed_numeric_text`、`text_evidence`、`text_summary` 和 `text_comparison`。
-- 预测型包含 `mixed_numeric_text`、`multi_period_trend` 和 `text_summary`，覆盖数值区间预测、趋势判断和经营信息综合判断。
-- 规范型当前 `type` 为 `null`，题目要求依据公告与适用规则判断披露、程序或后续动作是否合规。
-
-## 记录格式
-
-每条记录为一个 JSON 对象，统一包含：
-
-| 字段 | 含义 |
-|---|---|
-| `id` | 任务唯一标识 |
-| `type` | 题目类型；规范型当前为 `null` |
-| `query` | 面向用户的中文问题 |
-| `instruction` | 回答语言、输出形式和证据要求 |
-| `evidence` | 财报、文本块、结构化财务记录或规则证据 |
-| `ground_truth` | 标准答案，可为数字、选项、表格或规范性结论 |
-
-## 标注与答案
-
-描述型答案包括数字、计算结果、排名、筛选结果、趋势或文本摘要；预测型答案包括预测区间、选项或带理由的趋势判断，并以指定时点的实际结构化数据核验；规范型答案包括合规结论、事实依据和规则适用理由。查询约束和输出要求以 `query`、`instruction` 及金标准答案为准。
-
-## 检索来源与 evidence
-
-主要语料位于 `corpus/finance/zh/`：
-
-- `companies.jsonl`：公司元数据；
-- `reports.jsonl`：财报元数据与文本；
-- `financial_fields.jsonl`：结构化财务字段；
-- `report_chunks.jsonl`：按页或段落切分的检索文本；
-- `finance_reports.sqlite`：上述数据的数据库形式。
-
-evidence 使用财报 ID、文本块 ID 或结构化财报 ID，并通过 `report_id` 关联同一份财报的元数据、数值字段和文本内容。规范型任务还包含公告与规则证据。
-
-## 评测方法
-
-- 检索：按 evidence 标识计算 Evidence Recall@K、命中率和排序质量。
-- 答案：数值和选项使用精确或容差匹配，趋势、文本和规范任务结合结构化字段、答案要点及文本一致性评测。
-- 评测时应隔离 `retrieval` 与 `ground_truth` 数据，避免使用未来财报或同一财报的泄漏信息。
-
-## 使用说明
-
-任务文件整体为 JSON 数组。建议先按公司、报告期、报告类型和题目约束检索，再在财报文本与结构化字段之间交叉核验。数据适用于研究和检索实验，不构成投资、审计或会计意见。

query/legal/en/prescriptive.json

@@ -1,743 +0,0 @@
-[
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_1",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "An employee was discharged after closing a convenience store early and failing to record his final sale. A white employee temporarily covered his shift, and a Hispanic employee was later hired as a replacement. The discharged employee alleges race and national-origin discrimination, but the employer cites the documented policy violations as the reason for discharge. Under Title VII, does this record support a discrimination claim?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "10002",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. A Title VII plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case; if the employer then offers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the plaintiff must show that reason is pretextual. Here, the record did not establish a prima facie case and, in any event, the documented policy violations supplied a legitimate reason that was not shown to be pretextual."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_2",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A Social Security claimant asks an ALJ to give preclusive effect to an earlier disability decision covering a prior period. The present proceeding concerns a different time period, and the earlier decision did not finally adjudicate the same facts or issues now before the agency. Must the later ALJ treat the earlier decision as binding under administrative res judicata?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "9142764",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Administrative res judicata applies when a prior final agency determination concerns the same facts and issues. Because the earlier disability decision covered a different period and did not finally resolve the facts or issues in the current proceeding, the ALJ was not required to give it preclusive effect."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_3",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "An employer seeks to enforce restrictive covenants against a former account executive. The noncompete lasts six months and covers a 60-mile radius corresponding to the employer's market; the nondisclosure and nonsolicitation provisions last one year, and the nonsolicitation clause is limited to customers with whom the employee had contact. Are these restrictions likely to be considered reasonable in scope?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "9368470",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Yes, on the stated record. Restrictive covenants must be no broader than reasonably necessary to protect legitimate interests. The limited duration, market-based geographic scope, and restriction of customer solicitation to clients with whom the employee actually dealt supported a finding that the covenants were reasonable in scope."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_4",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A prisoner developed appendicitis that later resulted in a perforated appendix. The prison contractor assumes the condition was objectively serious, but the record contains no evidence that any staff member actually knew of and disregarded the serious medical risk, and no expert evidence establishes what staff should have known. Does this showing establish deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1147494",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Deliberate indifference requires both a sufficiently serious deprivation and the required culpable state of mind; noncompliance with internal corporate policy is not itself part of that constitutional test. Without evidence that staff knew of and disregarded a serious medical need, the deliberate-indifference claim fails."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_5",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A plaintiff brings an abuse-of-process claim after an arrest and prosecution that were supported by probable cause. He speculates that officers used the prosecution to improve their careers, make an operation appear successful, or pressure him for information, but offers no evidence of such a collateral objective. Can the abuse-of-process claim succeed?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1025702",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Abuse of process requires use of legal process without justification and for a collateral objective outside the legitimate ends of the process. Probable cause supplied justification for the prosecution, and unsupported speculation about an improper collateral purpose was insufficient."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_6",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "An employee alleges discriminatory discharge. During discovery, however, the employer learns that he omitted a prior job and dismissal from his employment application, and the omission would have disqualified him from the position in the first place. Can he obtain relief for the alleged discrimination despite this after-acquired information?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "10531939",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No on this record. After-acquired evidence showing that the employee was not entitled to the position in the first place can bar the requested recovery even if the employer did not know of the disqualifying fact when it discharged him. The undisclosed prior dismissal disqualified the employee from the job."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_7",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A patient was examined at a hospital and later discharged. The plaintiff claims that the hospital had determined she was suffering from an emergency medical condition but failed to stabilize that condition before discharge. Under EMTALA, what must be shown for the stabilization claim to succeed?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "5876779",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "EMTALA is violated when a hospital determines that a patient has an emergency medical condition and then fails to stabilize or properly transfer the patient. Thus, liability turns on proof that the hospital actually identified an emergency medical condition and discharged the patient without the stabilization required by the statute."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_8",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A committed pro se litigant sought declaratory relief but mistakenly named a provision of the state criminal procedure code, rather than a proper person or legal entity, as the defendant. His filing nevertheless made clear that he sought to prevent recommitment and obtain release. Should the action be dismissed outright for the pleading defect?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1412815",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. A pro se litigant should receive reasonable leniency and be allowed to amend when the complaint clearly indicates a potentially valid ground for relief. Because the intended challenge was apparent, the proper course was to permit amendment to name the correct respondent rather than end the action on the technical defect."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_9",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "Federal agents briefly detained and questioned several suspects near a location connected to a suspected drug transaction before formally arresting them. The defendants argue that the encounter was already a custodial arrest and that Miranda warnings were therefore required before questioning. What distinction governs whether the pre-arrest statements must be suppressed?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "7626649",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The key question is whether the encounter remained a limited investigatory stop supported by reasonable suspicion or had escalated into a de facto arrest. A Terry-type investigatory stop does not by itself trigger Miranda; Miranda is required once the restraint becomes custodial in the constitutional sense."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_10",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "Officers obtained a warrant for a building they believed was a single-family residence, but the structure was actually divided into two dwelling units and probable cause existed for only one of them. The officers say they honestly did not know the building was multiunit. Is their lack of actual knowledge enough to sustain the warrant as written?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "2713021",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Not necessarily. The relevant inquiry is not limited to what the officers actually knew; it also asks whether they knew or reasonably should have known that the premises contained multiple units. A warrant authorizing a search beyond the unit supported by probable cause cannot be saved merely by an honest mistake if the building's character should have been apparent."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_11",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A nonresident company executed a contract in Puerto Rico, agreed that Puerto Rico law would govern, and allegedly caused injuries directly related to that transaction. Two individual defendants are also alleged to have personally participated in conduct contributing to the company's breach, and one signed the contract in Puerto Rico. May a Puerto Rico federal court exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "10545045",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Yes on the stated facts. Specific jurisdiction is consistent with due process where defendants create substantial forum contacts related to the claim. Executing and governing the contract in Puerto Rico, receiving the benefits of Puerto Rico law, and personally participating in the forum-related conduct supplied the required connection."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_12",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A Social Security decision found that a claimant retained the capacity for 'light work' and then concluded that he could return to his former job because the Dictionary of Occupational Titles also classified that occupation as light work. The decision did not compare the claimant's present limitations with the actual physical demands of the job he previously performed. Is that enough at step four of the disability analysis?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1938914",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. It is not sufficient to match a claimant's residual functional capacity to a broad exertional label assigned to an occupation. The agency must determine the actual demands of the claimant's past relevant work and compare those demands with the claimant's present capabilities."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_13",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A party destroyed evidence relevant to a products-liability dispute. The opposing party seeks sanctions, potentially including an adverse inference or exclusion of evidence. What factors should guide the court in selecting an appropriate spoliation sanction?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1834632",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The sanction should reflect the destroying party's degree of fault, the prejudice to the opposing party, and whether a lesser sanction can cure the unfairness while deterring serious misconduct. Spoliation sanctions are therefore graduated rather than automatic; an adverse inference may suffice in some cases, while more severe sanctions may be justified when the loss is critical and fault is substantial."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_14",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A plaintiff alleges that a defendant fraudulently induced a contract and seeks punitive damages under New York law. The alleged fraud concerns the parties' transaction, but the plaintiff does not show that the conduct was directed at the public generally. Are punitive damages available merely because the alleged fraud was serious?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "9050027",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. In a contractual setting, punitive damages for fraud require more than serious misconduct between the parties; the conduct must satisfy the public-harm requirement, such as fraud directed at the public generally. An isolated private transaction does not meet that standard merely because the alleged conduct was improper."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_15",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A party asks a federal district court to reconsider several prior orders but identifies no intervening change in controlling law, no newly available evidence, and no clear error or manifest injustice. Is reconsideration warranted?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1859609",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Reconsideration is generally justified only by an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. A motion that establishes none of those grounds should be denied."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_16",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A patent claim requires a component to be 'removably' attached. The accused device uses rivets, which can be drilled out and replaced but are destroyed when removed and are ordinarily used to create permanent connections. Do those rivets satisfy the ordinary meaning of a removable attachment?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "11581549",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. The ordinary meaning of a removable connection does not encompass destroying a fastener that was intended to form a permanent bond. The fact that a rivet can physically be broken and replaced does not make the riveted connection 'removable' within the claim language."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_17",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A federal prisoner alleges that prison medical personnel failed to provide adequate care during a period of significant bleeding. Medical testimony states that appropriate care would have included additional testing and that the care provided fell below the community standard. Can the United States be liable for the resulting injury?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "253271",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Yes, if the negligent failure to provide reasonable medical care caused compensable harm. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the United States may be liable for negligence in the medical care provided to a prisoner under its control. The source court found inadequate care and awarded damages for the resulting discomfort and anxiety."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_18",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A person's criminal conviction has been set aside and vacated, and the person also benefited from a presidential pardon. He seeks expungement of the historical criminal record but offers no evidence that the continued existence of the record is causing any concrete adverse consequence. Is vacatur and pardon alone enough to obtain expungement?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1812427",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Expungement of judicial criminal records is a narrow and extraordinary remedy even after a conviction has been vacated. The applicant must show extraordinary circumstances that outweigh the government's interest in maintaining historical records; vacatur, pardon, and speculative future harm are not enough by themselves."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_19",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "The defense seeks information in the government's possession that appears potentially favorable and could assist several aspects of the defense. Prosecutors argue that they need not disclose it because they believe the information can be explained away or may ultimately be rejected by the factfinder. May the government withhold it on that basis?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "6174831",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. The prosecutor may not withhold facially exculpatory or potentially favorable information simply because the government believes it can later discredit or explain it. Where the defense makes a sufficient showing that the material may be favorable, Brady's fairness principle requires disclosure."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_20",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A debtor seeks to discharge a judgment debt arising from a shooting. In prior litigation between the same parties, a state court already determined issues concerning the debtor's willful and malicious conduct. May the bankruptcy court simply relitigate those issues when deciding dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1267755",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Issue preclusion can bind the bankruptcy court to factual issues actually determined in the prior state-court litigation between the same parties. The source court held that the bankruptcy court should have applied collateral estoppel rather than relitigating those issues when deciding dischargeability."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_21",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A female employee was discharged after her employer offered several qualifications-based explanations for the decision. The record contains significant inconsistencies in those explanations, undermines the credibility of the employer's principal witnesses, and shows that the employer had considered her qualified for comparable management responsibility. Under the Title VII burden-shifting framework, how can she establish that the discharge was intentional sex discrimination?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "6184064",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Once the employer's stated reasons are shown to be pretextual, the plaintiff still bears the ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination. She may do so directly by showing that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer's explanation is unworthy of credence. On the source record, that burden was satisfied."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_22",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A minority employee claims discriminatory nonselection for a promotion because he had more years of investigative experience than the successful applicants. The employer points to evidence that the successful applicants were also experienced and that the plaintiff had weaknesses relevant to the new position. Is a modest difference in experience enough to show pretext?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "881091",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Comparative qualifications can support an inference of discrimination only when the gap is sufficiently large—described in the governing precedent as 'wide and inexplicable.' A modest seniority advantage, especially where the employer identifies job-relevant weaknesses, does not by itself establish pretext."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_23",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A bankruptcy summons was issued on time but was not properly served within the period required by the applicable bankruptcy rule. After the deadline for filing dischargeability complaints had passed, the court issued a new summons on the original timely complaint. Must the complaint be dismissed because the second summons was issued after the filing deadline?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "6533417",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. The applicable rule expressly permits issuance and service of another summons when the original summons was not timely served. Reissuing the summons on the original timely complaint does not require dismissal merely because the complaint-filing deadline has since passed."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_24",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A disability claimant consistently reported severe pain, and several treating or examining doctors documented significant limitations. The ALJ relied heavily on a brief contrary report from a physician who lacked important imaging records and did not meaningfully discuss the other medical evidence or the claimant's consistent subjective symptoms. Is the resulting denial supported by substantial evidence?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "11957665",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. A disability decision must fairly evaluate the medical record and cannot lightly disregard consistent subjective symptoms, particularly when they are supported by medical evidence. The source court found that the selective reliance on a perfunctory contrary report and failure to address substantial supporting evidence deprived the claimant of a fair, objective assessment and required remand."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_25",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "Hotel guests received a reservation-confirmation email containing a hyperlink to terms that included a forum-selection clause. They did not click the hyperlink and later signed a registration form at check-in, but argue that they lacked meaningful notice of the clause. Does the emailed hyperlink provide sufficient notice under the reasonable-communicativeness test?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "5768106",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Yes. A forum-selection clause can be reasonably communicated through a confirmation email that clearly provides access to the governing terms. Where nothing prevented the recipients from opening the hyperlink and they simply chose not to read it, the email provides sufficient notice of the clause."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_26",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A veteran seeks to reopen a previously denied benefits claim based on a former servicemember's statement recalling a fungal foot condition approximately forty-five years earlier. The statement is new, but contemporaneous service and discharge records showed no such condition. Is the new statement 'material' enough to require reopening?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "6464886",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No on the source record. New evidence is material only if, considered with the existing record, it creates a reasonable possibility of changing the result. A decades-later recollection that is outweighed by contemporaneous medical records showing no condition did not meet that standard."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_27",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A defendant involved in a large drug conspiracy handled substantial quantities of cocaine and helped direct another participant. The district court rejected his self-serving denial and, based on the presentence record, found that he was not a minor participant. Is a minor-role reduction warranted?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "8953778",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. A minor-role finding is reviewed for clear error and must be assessed in light of the defendant's actual involvement in the offense. Given the defendant's extensive participation and direction of another person, the district court's refusal to treat him as a minor participant was not clearly erroneous."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_28",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "In deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction in a patent dispute, the district court finds that denying relief would cause the plaintiff only minimal harm, while granting the injunction could put the smaller defendant out of business. May the court consider that disparity in hardship?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1812143",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Yes. The relative harm to the parties is a proper equitable factor in the preliminary-injunction analysis, and a court may consider the practical effect of an injunction on each side. But the defendant's small size or risk of going out of business is not independently dispositive if the other injunction factors strongly favor relief."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_29",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A government agency terminated a contract for default. In later litigation, the government abandoned the specific ground stated in the termination letter but sought to defend the default on the basis of fraud discovered afterward. Is the government categorically barred from relying on the later-discovered ground?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "5688980",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. A default termination may be justified by a valid ground discovered after the termination decision, including subsequently discovered fraud. The source court therefore rejected the argument that the government's proof was limited to the precise ground stated in the original termination letter."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_30",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "Defendants were convicted of obstructing justice based on efforts to interfere with a grand-jury investigation. The parties agree that a judicial proceeding must have been pending, but dispute whether the mere existence of a sitting grand jury and subpoenas was enough to establish a pending investigation at the relevant time. What threshold must the prosecution establish under 18 U.S.C. § 1503?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "521548",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "A pending judicial proceeding is a necessary predicate for obstruction under § 1503. The government must establish that the allegedly obstructive conduct was directed at an actual pending proceeding; the mere existence of a sitting grand jury does not automatically resolve the factual question whether a relevant grand-jury investigation was pending."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_31",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A state appellate court denied a habeas claim as 'without merit' after the trial court had issued a less clear ruling that might have referred to a procedural bar. The state's highest court then denied review without explanation. Should a federal habeas court treat the claim as procedurally defaulted?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1107781",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No on these facts. When the final state decision is silent or ambiguous, the federal court looks through to the last clear and explained state-court decision. Because the controlling appellate decision rejected the claim on the merits and did not clearly and expressly rely on an independent procedural ground, the claim was not procedurally barred."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_32",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A habeas petitioner argues that trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to invent or pursue defenses that the record did not support. The trial transcript instead shows active investigation, motions, objections, and sustained advocacy throughout the case. Does the absence of a fabricated defense establish ineffective assistance?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "182210",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Counsel has a duty to investigate and pursue valid defenses, not to fabricate defenses unsupported by the facts. Where the record shows energetic and competent representation, the mere failure to manufacture an unsupported theory does not constitute ineffective assistance."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_33",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A hospital challenges the National Labor Relations Board's classification of radiologic technologists and respiratory therapists as technical rather than professional employees. The Board applied the statutory definition, while the hospital argues that the record better supports professional status. What level of deference should a reviewing court give the Board's classification?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1257935",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. The Board's job-classification determinations are entitled to deference because of its expertise, and its factual findings are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence. A court should not overturn the classification merely because the employer favors a different characterization."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_34",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A party responds to Rule 34 document requests by pointing to a prior bulk production made with its Rule 26 disclosures. It does not show that the documents were produced as kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond with the Rule 34 requests. Has the party satisfied Rule 34(b)?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "672990",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Prior Rule 26 disclosures do not excuse compliance with Rule 34. Unless otherwise agreed or ordered, documents must be produced as kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond to the requests; an undifferentiated bulk production that satisfies neither method is inadequate."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_35",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A defendant convicted of illegal reentry is sentenced in a district without a fast-track program. He argues that the sentence is unreasonable because defendants in districts with fast-track programs can receive lower sentences for similar conduct. Must the sentencing court reduce his sentence to eliminate that disparity?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "3779616",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. A district court's refusal to adjust a sentence solely to compensate for the absence of a fast-track program does not make the sentence unreasonable. The disparity attributable to the availability of fast-track programs is not, by itself, the kind of unwarranted disparity that § 3553(a)(6) requires the sentencing court to eliminate."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_36",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A defendant possesses surveillance video of the plaintiff and says the material may be used at trial for impeachment or rebuttal. He resists pretrial production on the ground that the footage is attorney work product. Is surveillance material that may be used at trial categorically protected from discovery?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "7849969",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Surveillance material intended for possible use at trial is generally discoverable; the work-product protection discussed in the cited authority concerned material that would not be used at trial at all. The defendant therefore could not withhold potentially trial-used surveillance footage on that basis alone."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_37",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "After prevailing in federal litigation, a party seeks costs under Rule 54(d)(1), including ordinary court fees as well as litigation expenses outside the categories listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. What costs may the district court award under Rule 54(d)?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "10542476",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Rule 54(d)(1) presumptively allows the prevailing party only the taxable costs authorized by § 1920, unless the court articulates a reason to deny them. Expenses outside the statutory categories—such as ordinary attorney fees or excess expert-witness fees—cannot be shifted merely under Rule 54(d)(1)."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_38",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A loan agreement contains a contractual choice-of-law clause selecting Colorado law. Applying the selected law would preserve the lender's claim, while another state's anti-deficiency rules might defeat it. When should a federal court sitting in Colorado refuse to enforce the parties' choice-of-law provision?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "9379995",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Colorado generally enforces contractual choice-of-law clauses under Restatement § 187. The chosen law is displaced only when applying it would contravene a fundamental policy of another state that has a materially greater interest and whose law would otherwise govern. The party resisting the clause bears that showing."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_39",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A collective-bargaining agreement prohibits subcontracting. An employer eliminates six office jobs by transferring their work to another company and argues that severe financial distress justified the layoffs. Does financial hardship excuse the breach of the anti-subcontracting provision?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "5710029",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Enforceable anti-subcontracting clauses are not nullified by an employer's financial crisis. Employees laid off in violation of such a clause may recover appropriate contract remedies, commonly reinstatement and back pay subject to mitigation and the limits of the agreement."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_40",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "An insurer claims exclusive rights in a descriptive business mark against a later user. The mark is not inherently distinctive, and the claimant offers no meaningful evidence that it had acquired significant marketplace recognition before the later user entered the market. The record is also thin on likelihood of confusion. Can the claimant establish exclusive trademark rights on that showing?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1251194",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. A descriptive mark requires proof of acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning before it is protectable, and infringement also requires a likelihood of confusion. Without evidence of marketplace recognition or a sufficient confusion showing, the record cannot support exclusive rights in the mark."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_41",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to stop operation of a chemical-agent incinerator while litigation proceeds. They identify possible environmental risks, but the record indicates that continued storage of the chemical agents poses substantially greater quantified risks than the planned disposal operations. How should that comparison affect the injunction analysis?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "6186213",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Even assuming the plaintiffs show some irreparable risk, the court must balance that harm against the harms likely to result from an injunction. Where the evidence indicates that continued storage presents materially greater safety risks than controlled disposal, the balance of harms weighs against enjoining the operation."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_42",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "Registrants affected by an emergency agency suspension initially requested an administrative hearing but later withdrew their requests. They then seek judicial review while arguing that the statutory bar on review applies only when no hearing was ever requested. Does withdrawing the hearing request avoid the waiver rule?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "7403181",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Requesting an administrative hearing and then withdrawing it produces the same relevant waiver as failing to request the hearing in the first place. A registrant cannot preserve administrative review rights merely by making and then abandoning the request."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_43",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A party inadvertently failed to demand a jury trial on time, but moved under Rule 39(b) relatively early in the litigation and before substantial discovery. The opposing party argues that inadvertence alone requires denial. Does the court retain discretion to grant a jury trial?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "36413",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Yes. Rule 39(b) leaves the decision to the district court's discretion; precedent upholding denial after a very long unexplained delay does not create a categorical rule that every inadvertent omission must be denied. An early request made before significant discovery may be treated differently."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_44",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "Debtors temporarily moved from their Idaho homestead to a rented house for a six-month job, while retaining their prior property and later claiming it as their homestead in bankruptcy. They had no ownership interest in the temporary residence and did not clearly manifest an intent to abandon the former domicile. Have they abandoned the homestead exemption merely because of the temporary absence?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "6102728",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No on these facts. Temporary absence does not necessarily establish abandonment, particularly where the alternative residence is plainly temporary and the debtors retain objective ties to the claimed homestead. The source court found the presumption of abandonment rebutted and allowed the exemption."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_45",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A company uses another automaker's registered crest, stylized name, and distinctive vehicle appearance in national advertising. The user does not dispute the use or the owner's protectable trademark and trade dress, but contests liability. What core showing is required for trademark or trade-dress infringement under the Lanham Act?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1481077",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The owner must show protected trademark or trade-dress rights, use in commerce by the defendant, and a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception as to source, affiliation, sponsorship, or approval. Trade dress additionally must be distinctive and nonfunctional. The undisputed use alone does not replace the likelihood-of-confusion inquiry."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_46",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A patent challenger argues that a claimed invention is obvious because individual elements were known in the prior art. The prior art, however, did not suggest the claimed combination as a whole, and the challenger did not show that a person of ordinary skill would have found that combination obvious at the time of invention. Has the challenger carried its burden under § 103?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1847956",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Obviousness is assessed on the claimed subject matter as a whole, not by showing only that separate components were individually known. Where the prior art did not suggest the claimed combination and the challenger failed to prove otherwise, the obviousness defense fails."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_47",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A state prisoner seeks federal habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. He already received a full and fair state-court habeas hearing, and the state records and transcripts are adequate for the federal court to decide the claim. Must the federal court hold a new plenary evidentiary hearing?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1029043",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. A federal habeas court need not conduct a new plenary hearing when the existing state-court record is adequate to determine the validity of the petitioner's claims. The court may resolve the case on the developed record where the petitioner already received a full and fair hearing."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_48",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A Chapter 11 debtor asks the bankruptcy court to authorize payments to critical vendors in order to preserve an operating business. May the court rely on its general equitable power under § 105 alone to authorize the payments?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "9026623",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Section 105 is not an independent source of authority for critical-vendor payments. The court may, in appropriate circumstances, use § 105 together with a substantive Bankruptcy Code provision such as § 363, which authorizes transactions needed to preserve the estate and going-concern value."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_49",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A police officer used paid sick leave concurrently with FMLA leave. Under the employer's neutral leave policy, taking more than forty hours of sick leave made him ineligible for an annual-leave bonus, while choosing another available form of paid leave would not have had that consequence. Does the FMLA require the employer to restore the lost bonus?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "351784",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. The FMLA guarantees protected leave but does not require an employer to provide paid leave or place an employee in a better position than if FMLA leave had not been taken. Where the loss of the bonus followed from the neutral consequences of the employee's paid-sick-leave election, denying the bonus did not violate the FMLA."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_50",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A plaintiff seeks specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state entity largely because it owns or participates in a related corporation or joint venture connected to the forum. The pleadings do not show additional forum-directed conduct by that entity. Does ownership or joint-venture status alone establish purposeful availment?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "6178074",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Mere ownership or a controlling interest in an entity subject to jurisdiction does not itself amount to purposeful availment. A joint-venture relationship, standing alone, is likewise insufficient without additional conduct showing that the defendant deliberately created meaningful contacts with the forum."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_51",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "An indictment charges mail fraud largely in the language of the statute. The defendant argues that it fails to allege the facts necessary to constitute the offense. What essential factual components must an indictment allege for a mail-fraud scheme?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "3583610",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The charging instrument must allege a scheme or artifice to defraud, an intent to use or cause use of the mails in furtherance of that scheme, and an actual mailing or receipt through the postal system in carrying it out. A purely conclusory statutory label is insufficient if the indictment does not otherwise supply those essential facts."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_52",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A jailed pro se plaintiff files a § 1983 complaint against government officials. At the mandatory screening stage under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the allegations are sparse but could support relief if proved, and the complaint must be liberally construed. What dismissal standard should the court apply?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "1094432",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The § 1915A screening standard tracks Rule 12(b)(6): dismissal is appropriate only when the complaint fails to state a legally cognizable claim, while pro se allegations are construed liberally. At this stage, the court should not dismiss a potentially viable claim merely because the pleading lacks lawyerly detail."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_53",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "An appellate court has jurisdiction over an interlocutory Rule 23 class-certification order. A party asks the court to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a separate FLSA collective-action certification ruling on the theory that the two certification inquiries are essentially the same. Are the Rule 23 and FLSA standards sufficiently intertwined to justify pendent review?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "3508544",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. Rule 23 class certification and FLSA collective-action certification apply materially different standards and are not sufficiently similar or inextricably intertwined to support pendent appellate jurisdiction. FLSA final certification turns on whether employees are 'similarly situated,' not on importing Rule 23's commonality or predominance requirements."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_54",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "Defendants were convicted of federal mail fraud based on a theory that they deprived citizens of an intangible right to honest and impartial government rather than money or property. Can those mail-fraud convictions stand on that theory?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "28213",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. The mail-fraud statute does not reach a scheme framed solely as depriving the public of an intangible right to honest and impartial government. The source court dismissed the mail-fraud convictions on that basis."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_55",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A proposed expansion of a discrimination class would include farmers who never filed discrimination complaints with the federal agency, even though the operative complaint sought relief only for those who had filed such complaints and the statutory limitations waiver applied only to timely agency complainants. Can the consent decree be broadened to cover the noncomplainants?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "11343155",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. A consent decree cannot be used to grant relief to persons whose claims fall outside the pleaded class and the statutory framework that supports the action. Farmers who never filed the relevant agency complaints faced distinct limitations and merits issues and could not simply be added to the existing decree."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_56",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A public company made truthful statements about one category of mortgage-backed-securities litigation while separately disclosing other fraud and securities exposure. Investors argue that those truthful statements became misleading because the company did not also disclose a potential suit involving a different category of claims. Are the statements misleading merely because that separate potential suit was omitted?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "4020586",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No on the stated record. Truthful statements about one category of claims are not rendered misleading by omission of a distinct potential suit when the company has clearly distinguished the categories and the statements do not imply that no other claims may arise. Context matters, and the omission did not make the challenged statements false or misleading."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "legal_en_prescriptive_57",
-    "type": null,
-    "query": "A defendant convicted of illegal reentry received a sentence at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines range. He argues that the usual presumption of reasonableness should not apply because the relevant guideline lacks an empirical basis. Does that argument by itself defeat the presumption applied to his within-Guidelines sentence?",
-    "instruction": "Answer the legal question by retrieving the relevant precedent from the provided case-law corpus. State the governing rule and briefly explain how it applies to the facts.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "docid": "4238292",
-        "type": "precedent_case"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "No. A within-Guidelines sentence remains subject to the ordinary presumption of reasonableness, and the argument that the particular guideline lacks an empirical basis does not by itself eliminate that presumption. On the source record, the defendant failed to show that the sentencing court misweighed the relevant factors, so the sentence was affirmed."
-  }
-]

query/legal/zh/README_zh.md

@@ -1,47 +0,0 @@
-# ANSER 中文法律分析型检索 Benchmark
-
-本目录提供基于中文裁判文书、案件元数据和结构化案件特征的分析型检索任务，覆盖案件计数、条件筛选和历史裁判关联分析。
-
-## 数据概览
-
-| 文件 | 数量 | 任务范围 |
-|---|---:|---|
-| `descriptive.json` | 200 | 案件计数与条件筛选；`reasoning` 50、`semantic` 75、`sql` 75 |
-| `predictive.json` | 100 | 案件因素与裁判结果之间的历史统计关联 |
-
-## 任务与题目类型
-
-- 描述型题目询问满足案由、事实、程序或结果条件的文书数量；`sql` 题目对应结构化字段，`semantic` 题目依赖文书文本，`reasoning` 题目需要组合条件推理。
-- 预测型题目比较 predictor 与 outcome 在案件样本中的统计关系，属于观察性关联分析，不表示因果关系，也不构成法律意见。
-- `predictive.json` 当前 `type` 字段为 `null`，具体分析类型和预测因素、结果由 `query` 与 `instruction` 定义。
-
-## 记录格式
-
-每条记录为一个 JSON 对象，统一包含：
-
-| 字段 | 含义 |
-|---|---|
-| `id` | 任务唯一标识 |
-| `type` | 描述型题目类型；预测型当前为 `null` |
-| `query` | 面向用户的中文法律问题 |
-| `instruction` | 输出格式和分析范围要求 |
-| `evidence` | 中文案号或文书标识 |
-| `ground_truth` | 描述型为文书数量；预测型为标签及统计结果 |
-
-## 标注与答案
-
-描述型标注以满足全部条件的 distinct 文书数量为准，并保留 SQL 或条件规则用于复核。预测型标注包含 `positive`、`negative` 或 `no_clear_relationship` 等方向标签，以及样本量、分组比例、OR、95% CI 和 p 值等统计结果。
-
-## 检索来源与 evidence
-
-主要文书数据位于 `corpus/legal/zh/` 的 `wenshu.json`、`wenshu_content.json` 和 `features.json`；结构化检索数据库为 `corpora/legal/zh/legal_wenshu.db`，包含案件与特征表。evidence 中的案号对应案件记录，可关联案由、法院、日期、全文和结构化特征；中文法律条文语料不作为当前案件统计题目的默认 evidence。
-
-## 评测方法
-
-- 检索：按 evidence 标识计算 Evidence Recall@K、命中率和排序质量。
-- 描述型答案：使用文书数量的精确匹配。
-- 预测型答案：分别评测方向标签、样本统计量和 OR/CI/p 值的数值误差或容差匹配。
-
-## 使用说明
-
-任务文件整体为 JSON 数组。法律分析应限定在语料和题目条件内；结构化特征属于检索与分析标注，应结合原始裁判文书核验，也不构成法律建议。

query/science/README_zh.md

@@ -1,48 +0,0 @@
-# ANSER 科学分析型检索 Benchmark
-
-本目录提供基于系统综述和 Meta-analysis 的科学证据检索与分析任务，要求从文献语料中检索、筛选并综合可追溯证据。
-
-## 数据概览
-
-| 文件 | 数量 | 任务范围 |
-|---|---:|---|
-| `descriptive.json` | 20 | 可由纳入研究直接归纳的 dominant pattern |
-| `perdictive.json` | 137 | 总体 effect direction 和 effect magnitude |
-
-## 任务与题目类型
-
-- 描述型 `type` 为 `dominant_pattern`（20 条），进一步区分 `most_common_category`、`main_factors` 与 `key_finding`（由综述归纳、但不要求重新计算的单一主要发现）。
-- 未保留 pooled estimate 或异质性数值题：当前证据仅包含 source review 的参考文献集合，未规定效应提取、研究去重、合并模型或亚组口径，因而无法唯一复现 pooled estimate 或 I²。多终点的 High/Moderate/Low 标签也没有统一、可复现的分类规则；相关综述只在能转化为明确的定性主发现时才保留。
-- 预测型 `type` 包含 `direction`（111 条）和 `magnitude`（26 条），分别判断总体方向及 pooled effect size。
-- 每条任务聚焦一个可独立评测的目标，不要求同时回答亚组、机制、局限性或未来研究问题。
-
-## 记录格式
-
-每条记录为一个 JSON 对象，统一包含：
-
-| 字段 | 含义 |
-|---|---|
-| `id` | 任务唯一标识，含 source review 与任务后缀 |
-| `type` | 顶层题目类型 |
-| `query` | 面向用户的英文科学问题 |
-| `instruction` | 检索范围和该类型的作答要求 |
-| `evidence` | 文献文章标识列表 |
-| `ground_truth` | 标准答案或 canonical answer |
-
-## 标注与答案
-
-任务的 Population、Intervention/Exposure、Comparison、Outcome、时间范围和纳排要求均写在 `query` 与 `instruction` 中；`ground_truth` 保存可由文献直接归纳的类别、主要发现、因素、方向或效应量答案。仅在语料覆盖和答案足够可靠时保留任务。
-
-## 检索来源与 evidence
-
-科学文献语料位于 `corpora/science/articles.jsonl`。`evidence` 中的整数 ID 对应文章记录的 `ID` 字段，可检索 `title`、`abstract`、`sections[].text` 以及 PMID、DOI、PMC ID 等元数据；这些 evidence 表示 source review 的参考文献集合。
-
-## 评测方法
-
-- 检索：按 evidence ID 计算 Evidence Recall@K、命中率和排序质量。
-- dominant pattern：评测类别准确率或因素集合的一致性。
-- predictive：分别评测 direction、statistical significance、effect type、数值和 CI 端点。
-
-## 使用说明
-
-任务文件整体为 JSON 数组。应先依据 `query` 和 `instruction` 检索文章，再用 evidence 对齐语料记录并完成单一目标的回答。科学任务用于证据检索与综合研究，不替代原始论文或正式系统综述。

query/science/descriptive.json

@@ -1,2870 +0,0 @@
-[
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_1",
-    "type": "main_factors",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Healthcare stakeholders in India including healthcare providers, patients, and health systems\nExposure: Digital transformation implementation in healthcare (including telemedicine, electronic health records, mobile health applications, and other digital health technologies)\nComparison: Successful versus unsuccessful digital health implementation contexts\nOutcome: Barriers to digital transformation implementation (including technological infrastructure limitations, data security and privacy concerns, lack of physical examination capability, organizational barriers, financial barriers, and behavioral resistance)\nPublication period: up to 2022-12-31\nEligible studies: The present study included peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies published in English from inception till December 2022. Specifically, reports that provide data on barriers to implementing digital transformation in the health sector of India were included. Both patient-provider level barriers to the uptake of digital health transformation were considered. This review defined barriers as factors hindering the health sector’s digital transformation, such as a switch to various technological innovations, including telemedicine and mobile health.\nExclude: case reports, conference abstracts, editorials, commentaries, and reviews were excluded.\n\nTask: What were the main barriers to implementing digital transformation in India's health sector?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 8284,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8285,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8286,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8287,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8288,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8289,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8290,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8291,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8292,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8293,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8294,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8295,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8296,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8297,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8298,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8299,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8300,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8301,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8302,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8303,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The main barriers were limited network coverage and IT infrastructure, high costs, inadequate medical records and expertise, limited physical examination, data accuracy and privacy concerns, language and communication barriers, user-related barriers, and ethical, legal, and accountability concerns."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_2",
-    "type": "main_factors",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Adults aged 18 years or older with BMI ≥27.5 kg/m² (living with excess weight or obesity)\nIntervention: Synchronous (real-time), remote health interventions for weight management\nComparison: Factors facilitating engagement versus factors hindering engagement (barriers versus facilitators)\nOutcome: Engagement with remote weight management interventions (barriers and facilitators to engagement mapped to capability, opportunity, and motivation domains)\nPublication period: up to 2023-10-31\nEligible studies: The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study design (PICOS) framework was used to define the eligibility criteria [34]. The following criteria were selected for inclusion. Population. Studies including Adults (>18 years old) living with excess weight using the adjusted BMI obesity category thresholds to be inclusive of all ethnic groups (BMI ≥ 27.5 kg/m2 ) [35] and/or providers of care to this population following the NICE guidelines.Intervention. Studies that included a synchronous (real-time), interactive, remotely delivered weight management intervention. Comparison. Studies with or without a comparison group. Outcome(s). Studies that reported on the barriers and facilitators to engage with a remotely delivered weight management intervention. Study design. Mixed-methods, quantitative and qualitative study designs where barriers and facilitators to engaging in a synchronous, interactive, remotely delivered weight management intervention were measured/discussed.\nExclude: The following criteria were set for exclusion using the PICOS framework. Population. Studies with participants <18 years of age or with a BMI < 27.5 kg/m2 were excluded. Intervention. Studies that were not a health intervention with a weight management focus, alongside those that were solely autonomous or delivered only face-to-face, were excluded. Studies that reported predicting factors (such as demographic predictors) without specific barriers or facilitators were also excluded. Comparison. No exclusion specification was set for this criteria. Outcome(s). Studies not specifically reporting barriers or facilitators to engagement in a remote weight management intervention Study design. Studies not published in the English Language and systematic reviews, conference papers, protocols, case studies, opinion and editorial letters, and unpublished works were excluded.\n\nTask: What were the main barriers to engagement with remote weight-management interventions among adults living with excess weight?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 4578,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6919,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6920,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6921,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6922,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4574,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6923,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6924,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6925,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6926,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6927,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6928,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6929,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6930,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6931,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6932,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6933,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6934,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6935,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6936,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6937,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6938,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6939,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 8403,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 19897,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6940,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6941,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6942,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The main barriers were privacy concerns, time burden, embarrassment or anxiety, technical issues, and limited technology or internet access."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_3",
-    "type": "dominant_category",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Studies from systematic reviews assessing WASH interventions on diarrhoeal disease and acute respiratory infections in low- and middle-income countries\nIntervention: Water, sanitation and/or handwashing with soap interventions\nComparison: Gender responsiveness categories (gender unequal vs gender unaware) according to WHO Gender Responsiveness Assessment Scale\nOutcome: Women's engagement in research activities, women's engagement in intervention activities, time burden reporting, gender responsiveness classification, and assessment of intervention impacts specific to women\nPublication period: not restricted by date\nEligible studies: All papers included in the two previously published systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion if published in English or Spanish. Studies were excluded if not in English or Spanish1,2 .\nExclude: 14 were duplicates and 3 were excluded due to language (Chinese, Danish and French)\n\nTask: What type of outcome involving women was most commonly reported in WASH intervention studies?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 2096,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2097,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2098,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2099,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 30807,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2100,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2101,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2102,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2103,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2104,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2105,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4648,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 31207,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2106,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2107,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2108,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 31094,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2109,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2110,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2081,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2082,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2083,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2111,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2112,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2084,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2085,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2113,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2114,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2115,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2116,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2117,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2118,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2119,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2120,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2121,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 30855,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2122,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2087,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2123,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2124,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2125,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4649,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2126,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2127,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2128,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2129,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2130,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2131,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2088,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2095,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2132,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2133,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2134,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2135,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2136,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2137,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 30827,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2138,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2139,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2089,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2140,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2141,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2079,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2142,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2143,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2144,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2091,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2145,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4650,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2146,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2147,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2093,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2148,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 31018,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4651,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2149,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2150,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2151,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2152,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2153,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4652,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2154,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2155,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2156,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2157,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2158,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2159,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2160,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2161,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 2162,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "women's compliance behaviors"
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_4",
-    "type": "dominant_category",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Radiology reports (free-text clinical documentation from radiological imaging examinations, particularly CT, MRI, and thoracic imaging)\nExposure: Application of large language model (LLM) based natural language processing approaches, including pre-transformer and encoder-based models such as BERT\nComparison: Different LLM architectures and approaches (pre-transformer models, encoder-based models, various reporting granularities), as well as internal versus external validation performance\nOutcome: Information extraction performance from radiology reports, including named entity recognition, relation extraction, template filling accuracy, generalizability across external datasets, and comparability of approaches\nPublication period: from 2018-01-01 00:00:00 through 2023-08-01 00:00:00\nEligible studies: Inclusion criteria were discussed among and agreed on by all three authors. No separation was made between exclusion and inclusion criteria; reports were included upon fulfillment of all the following six aspects: • C.01: The full-text SOE is retrievable. • C.02: The SOE was published after 31/12/2017. • C.03: The SOE is published in a peer-reviewed journal or conference proceeding. • C.04: The SOE describes original research, excluding reviews, comments, patents and white papers. • C.05: The SOE describes the application of NLP methods for the purpose of IE from free-text radiology reports. • C.06: The described approach is LLM-based (defined as deep learning models with more than one million parameters, trained on unlabeled text data).\nExclude: not fulfilling inclusion criteria, which was not apparent based on information provided in the abstract.\n\nTask: Which model architecture predominated in large-language-model-based information extraction from radiology reports?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 4740,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4741,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4742,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4743,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4744,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4745,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4746,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4747,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4748,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4749,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4750,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4751,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4752,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4753,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4754,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4755,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4756,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4757,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4758,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4759,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4760,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "encoder-only BERT-based architectures"
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_5",
-    "type": "dominant_category",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Individuals with mobility disabilities, primarily those with spinal cord injuries, lower back pain, and lower limb pain\nIntervention: Virtual walking interventions including passive observing moving, arm swing locomotion, and foot tracking locomotion using virtual reality technologies\nComparison: Traditional physical therapy or standard care conditions\nOutcome: Pain reduction, physical function (mobility and muscle strength), depression, psychological well-being, feasibility, acceptability, and neurological mechanisms (somatosensory cortex activation)\nPublication period: from 2014-01-01 00:00:00 through 2024-10-08 00:00:00\nEligible studies: The inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed following the Population, Concept, and Context (PCC) framework. The population consisted of adults aged 18 years or older, with no restrictions on specific diseases or demographic characteristics (e.g., ethnicity or socioeconomic status). The concept focused on virtual walking interventions or interventions incorporating virtual walking components and reporting health- related outcomes. The context included a variety of interventional study designs, such as RCT, quasi- experimental studies, and other experimental studies.\nExclude: Studies were excluded if they were abstract- only, conference proceedings, protocols, or lacked full- text availability. Only studies published in English were included\n\nTask: Which locomotion method was most commonly used in virtual-walking interventions?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 4869,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4870,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4871,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4872,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4873,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 73678,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4874,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4875,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4876,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 4877,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "passive observing"
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_6",
-    "type": "main_factors",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Abortion seekers and healthcare providers in the United States accessing or providing medication abortion services\nIntervention: Medication abortion services via telemedicine and digital health platforms (including e-counseling, e-consenting, e-prescribing)\nComparison: Traditional in-clinic abortion services\nOutcome: Effectiveness of abortion (surgical intervention rates), accessibility of care, acceptability and perceptions of telemedicine-based abortion services among users and providers\nPublication period: up to 2022-09-30 00:00:00\nEligible studies: All primary studies that addressed the issue of medication abortion via telemedicine in the United States were included, including those using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method approaches; Medication abortion via telemedicine includes e-counseling, e-consenting, and/or e-prescribing abortion pills for users residing in the United States, regardless of the service provider’s location; Participants for the included studies were either potential abortion users or care providers; The studies we included also examined the effectiveness, acceptability, and perspectives of providers and users of abortion services offered via telemedicine.\nExclude: Duplicate studies; conference papers; anonymous reports; review papers; did not report any finding related to medication abortion via telemedicine; editorials; theoretical papers.\n\nTask: What were the common reasons for choosing telemedicine for medication abortion in the United States?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 5006,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5007,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5008,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5009,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 75341,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5010,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5011,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5012,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5013,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5014,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 75299,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5015,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5016,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5017,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5018,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5019,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5020,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5021,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5022,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5023,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5024,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 5025,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The common reasons were distance, convenience, privacy, cost, flexibility, and restrictive state laws."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_7",
-    "type": "dominant_category",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Oral healthcare clinics, including dental clinics and surgeries.\nExposure: Polymer-containing dental materials and oral-healthcare clinical procedures.\nComparison: Different clinic procedures, materials, and waste-management practices.\nOutcome: Polymer waste generation and polymer pollution in clinic air, wastewater, and solid waste.\nPublication period: up to 2025-03-31 00:00:00\nEligible studies: studies that reported quantified estimates of polymer waste or pollution in the air or wastewater within oral healthcare clinics; waste audits and field-based research reporting polymer pollution in oral healthcare clinics; laboratory studies experimentally designed to estimate polymer pollution from waste collection, management, and disposal in oral healthcare clinics\nExclude: studies that did not report quantified estimates, regardless of study design\n\nTask: What type of item was identified as a major contributor to polymer waste in oral healthcare clinics?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 45,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 46,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 47,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 48,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 49,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 50,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 51,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 52,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 53,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 54,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 55,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 56,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 57,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 58,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 59,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 60,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 61,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 62,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 63,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "single-use items"
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_8",
-    "type": "dominant_category",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Dental practice settings and dental specialties\nExposure: Application of Large Language Models (LLMs), predominantly ChatGPT, in dental practice\nComparison: General-purpose LLM models versus advanced prompting strategies; different levels of deployment maturity\nOutcome: Applications of LLMs in dentistry, evaluation metrics used, prompting strategies employed, and deployment levels of LLMs in dental practice\nPublication period: up to 2024-03-31 00:00:00\nEligible studies: Primary studies utilizing LLMs in dental practice ; Studies in English language\nExclude: Reviews, editorials, commentaries, and conference proceedings; Studies available as abstract only ; Studies registered as protocols\n\nTask: Which large language model was used most often in dentistry studies?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 136,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 137,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 138,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 139,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 140,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 141,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 142,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 143,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 144,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 145,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 146,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "ChatGPT"
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_9",
-    "type": "main_factors",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Dental patients and dental professionals (dentists and dental care providers)\nExposure: Dentist-patient trust relationship and its conceptualization in dental care settings\nComparison: Various definitions, assessment tools (Dental Trust Scale, Dental Beliefs Survey, and other instruments), and professional perceptions across included studies\nOutcome: Definition of trust in dental context, measurement instruments for dentist-patient trust, and dental professionals' perceptions of patient trust (including the role of communication in building trusting relationships)\nPublication period: from 1980-01-01 00:00:00 through 2021-11-30 00:00:00\nEligible studies: The participants should include patients and dental professionals, including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and dental therapists. The participants should be at least 18 years old. The study should include information that is relevant to at least one of the objectives. The study should be carried out in a dental setting including clinics and hospitals. English publications.\nExclude: If the study includes any non-dental professionals such as practice managers and receptionists. If the study participants include children, the intellectually disabled or family members of patients. If the study does not should include information that is relevant to at least one of the objectives. If the study is carried out in a nondental setting such as community centres. Non-English publications.\n\nTask: Which instruments were commonly used to measure patient trust in dentistry?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 6412,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6413,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6414,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6415,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6416,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6417,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6418,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6419,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6420,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6421,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The commonly used instruments were the Dental Trust Scale (DTS) and Dental Beliefs Survey (DBS)."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_10",
-    "type": "dominant_category",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Dental practitioners, dental office staff, patients, students, and educators in dental care settings\nExposure: Sexual misconduct behaviors including unwelcome sexual advances, comments, gestures, and physical contact in dental settings\nComparison: Non-exposed individuals or settings without sexual misconduct incidents\nOutcome: Prevalence of sexual misconduct, underreporting rates, emotional trauma, professional disengagement, and effectiveness of interventions targeting sexual misconduct behaviors\nPublication period: from 2010-01-01 00:00:00 through 2024-10-31 00:00:00\nEligible studies: Population Studies involving dental professionals (dentists, dental care professionals, dental technicians, dental nurses), dental students, and patients in dental care settings Phenomenon of interest Studies capturing and reporting on the prevalence of sexual misconduct within the context of dentistry, including details of perpetrator and victim. Also studies that reported on policies or interventions targeted at preventing or managing instances of sexual misconduct.Types of studies All study designs (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods). Language Studies in English and other languages, provided an English abstract or translation is available. Timeframe January 2010 – October 2024.\nExclude: Studies that included dental professionals though data were mixed with other health professions and did not explicitly state outcomes specific to dental professionals. Studies that did not provide empirical data on sexual misconduct in dental settings or with dental professionals. Literature that is solely editorial or opinion-based without empirical data or case analysis\n\nTask: Which form of sexual misconduct was reported most frequently in dentistry?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 6422,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6423,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6424,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6425,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6426,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6427,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6428,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6429,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6430,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6431,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6432,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 104436,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6433,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6434,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6435,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6436,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6437,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 6438,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "verbal harassment"
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_11",
-    "type": "main_factors",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Doctors working in general Emergency Departments in the UK, including foundation doctors, Emergency Medicine trainees, specialty and associate specialist doctors, and EM consultants\nExposure: Experience level and ophthalmology training received in Emergency Departments\nComparison: Different training grades (foundation doctors versus more experienced Emergency Medicine physicians) and adequacy of formal ophthalmology training\nOutcome: Self-reported confidence in managing ophthalmic emergencies, confidence in performing funduscopy and using the slit lamp, and perceived adequacy of ophthalmology training\nPublication period: up to 2022-10-01 00:00:00\nEligible studies: (1) featured doctors working in general EDs in the UK; (2) assessed the confidence of doctors in managing ophthalmic emergencies; (3) contained original data; (4) were full-text; and (5) were written in English.\nExclude: (1) did not feature doctors working in general EDs in the UK; (2) did not assess the confidence of doctors in managing ophthalmic emergencies; (3) did not contain original data; (4) had no fulltext; and (5) were not written in English\n\nTask: Which ophthalmic examination skills did emergency-department doctors most commonly report lacking confidence in?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 3106,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3107,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3108,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3109,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3110,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The skills most commonly associated with low confidence were funduscopy and slit-lamp examination."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_12",
-    "type": "dominant_category",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Glaucoma patients and healthcare professionals (ophthalmologists)\nExposure: Stated-preference methodologies examining preferences for glaucoma treatment characteristics, health states, and services\nComparison: Trade-offs between different attributes of glaucoma management (outcome attributes, process attributes, and cost attributes)\nOutcome: Preferences and relative importance of glaucoma management attributes including treatment effectiveness, adverse events, affordability, recovery time, duration of effect, and monitoring burden\nPublication period: up to 2021-10-27 00:00:00\nEligible studies: Stated-preference studies were included if they investigated patients’ or healthcare providers’ preferences for different aspects of glaucoma management and were published in full-text English. Stated-preference studies were defined as methods using ranking, rating, or choice designs to quantify preferences for various attributes [10]. There were no constraints on publication year, age, sex, or origin of the participants.\nExclude: Contingent valuation surveys (WTP) were excluded. Lastly, case reports and conference abstracts were also excluded.\n\nTask: Which treatment attribute was most influential in glaucoma treatment-preference studies?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 3149,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3150,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3151,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3152,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3153,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3154,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3155,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3156,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 85166,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3157,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "treatment effectiveness"
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_13",
-    "type": "study_pattern",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Patients with childhood glaucoma (including primary congenital glaucoma, juvenile open-angle glaucoma, and secondary glaucoma) and their caregivers (parents)\nExposure: Childhood glaucoma diagnosis and associated disease factors (visual impairment, treatment demands, chronic eye drop use, surgical procedures, cosmetic changes)\nComparison: Peers without chronic disease or visual impairment, as referenced through extrapolations from other pediatric conditions\nOutcome: Psychosocial functioning (well-being, basic functioning, self-mastery, interpersonal and social relationships) and quality of life (health-related QoL, vision-related QoL, functional vision) in patients and caregiver burden\nPublication period: up to 2022-04-30 00:00:00\nEligible studies: The authors used the following inclusion criteria when selecting literature: (1) original abstracts available in English; (2) research studies of any methodology; (3) studies from any country of publication; (4) studies from any year of publication; (5) study participants who were diagnosed with glaucoma at a pediatric age or study participants who were considered to be parent, caregiver, or immediate family member of a patient with childhood glaucoma; and (6) studies on the topic of PF or QoL.\nExclude: The authors excluded literature if (1) the paper was on any disease not relevant to childhood glaucoma, (2) the paper was on any topic not relevant to PF or QoL, and (3) it was a literature review and/or meta-analysis paper.\n\nTask: What study design predominated in research on psychosocial functioning and quality of life in childhood glaucoma?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 3260,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3261,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3262,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3263,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3264,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3265,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3266,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3267,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3268,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3269,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3270,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 85882,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3271,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3272,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3273,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3274,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "cross-sectional studies"
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_14",
-    "type": "main_factors",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) types 1 and 2\nIntervention: Gene-based therapies including onasemnogene abeparvovec, risdiplam, and nusinersen\nComparison: Comparison between different gene-based therapies (onasemnogene abeparvovec vs risdiplam vs nusinersen) and pre-treatment baseline status\nOutcome: Survival rate, need for ventilatory support, motor function improvement (CHOP-INTEND score ≥4 points), and adverse drug reactions (headaches, vomiting, gastrointestinal disorders)\nPublication period: up to 2024-05-31 00:00:00\nEligible studies: Initially, titles and abstracts were screened to identify potential studies. Clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that reported the effects of gene-based therapy on patients with SMA types 1 and 2 were selected. The outcomes of interest were patient survival, the number of patients requiring ventilatory support, motor function improvement, and ADRs. Only studies published in English were included.\nExclude: Duplication; Irrelevance to spinal muscular atrophy and the studydesigns;Non-English language studies;No full-texts available;Lacked the outcomes of interest;Not investigated the effects ofgene-based therapyamong children with spinal muscular atrophy;Not estimated the effects of gene-based therapy;Study abstracts conference or poster presentations;studies excluded because of the variation in reportedoutcomes,and the differences in symptoms and functional status of patients\n\nTask: What adverse drug reactions were most commonly reported for gene-based therapies for spinal muscular atrophy types 1 and 2?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 3319,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3320,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3321,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3322,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3323,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3324,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3325,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3326,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3327,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3328,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3329,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3330,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3331,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3332,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3333,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3334,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3335,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3336,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3337,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3338,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3339,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3340,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3341,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3342,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3343,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3344,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3345,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3346,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3347,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3348,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3349,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3350,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3351,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3352,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3353,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3354,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3355,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3356,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3357,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3358,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3359,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3360,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3361,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The most common adverse drug reactions were headache, vomiting, and gastrointestinal disorders."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_15",
-    "type": "dominant_category",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: General population exposed to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and polychlorinated dioxins and furans (PCDD/Fs)\nExposure: Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) mixtures including PFAS, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, PBDEs, and PCDD/Fs\nComparison: Single pollutant analysis approaches or non-exposed/lower exposure groups\nOutcome: Various health outcomes including body weight and birth sizes, neurological outcomes, cardiovascular diseases, metabolic diseases, liver injury, neurodevelopment, reproductive outcomes, and cancer\nPublication period: from 2011-01-01 00:00:00 through 2023-04-26 00:00:00\nEligible studies: We included peer-reviewed studies which were: 1) conducted in human subjects; 2) used any type of observational study design such as cohort, case–control and cross-sectional studies; 3) evaluated at least three POPs based on the National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS) definition of mixture in biomonitoring [33]; 4) estimated overall effects of POP mixtures using statistical methods. Statistical methods included were mixture methods identified in the previous literature [20, 21] or methods we identified through the two-stage literature screening approach. The final list of methods used for literature search were: WQS, BKMR, quantile g-computation, PCA, factor analysis, clustering methods such as k-means and hierarchical clustering, exposure continuum mapping, latent class/profile analysis, and other Bayesian approaches related to environmental mixture overall effects. We also included novel mixture methods developed through the Powering Research Through Innovative Methods for Mixtures in Epidemiology(PRIME) workshop [21] (Methods were listed in Supplementary Table S1).\nExclude: We excluded journal studies based on the following criteria: 1) studies conducted in animals or in silico, in vitro studies; 2) POP mixtures in studies were measured in air, food, drinking water, occupational settings or direct administration; 3) studies only used summation measures of POPs; 4) studies only used non-statistical toxicology-based studies such as toxic equivalency factors for PCDD/Fs [34]; 5) sources considered as gray literature, reviews, pre-prints, conference proceedings manuscripts, editorials, websites, or textbook chapters.\n\nTask: Which statistical mixture method was used most frequently in epidemiological studies of persistent organic pollutant mixtures?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 3551,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3552,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3553,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3554,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3555,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3556,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3557,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3558,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3559,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3560,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 86728,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 86850,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3561,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3562,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3563,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3564,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3565,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3566,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3567,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 88913,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3568,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3569,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3570,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3571,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3572,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3573,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3574,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3575,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3576,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 88196,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3577,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3578,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3579,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3580,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3581,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3582,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3583,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3584,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3585,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 70015,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3586,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3587,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3588,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3589,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3590,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3591,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3592,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3593,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3594,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3595,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3596,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 88583,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3597,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 86869,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3598,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3599,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3600,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 88130,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3601,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3602,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3603,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3604,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3605,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3606,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3607,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3608,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 70013,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3609,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3406,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3610,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3611,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 88983,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3612,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3613,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3614,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3615,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3616,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 88687,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3617,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3618,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3619,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3620,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3621,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3622,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3623,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3624,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3625,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3626,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3627,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 88698,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3628,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3629,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3630,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3631,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3632,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3633,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3634,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3635,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3636,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3637,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3638,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3639,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3640,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3641,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3642,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3643,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3644,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3645,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3646,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3647,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3648,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3649,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3650,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3651,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3652,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3653,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3654,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3655,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3656,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3657,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3658,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3659,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 88904,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3660,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3661,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3662,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3663,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 88703,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3664,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3665,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3666,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3667,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 86851,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 86868,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3668,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3669,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3670,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 86856,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3671,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3672,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3673,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3674,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3675,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 69988,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3676,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3677,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3678,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3679,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3680,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3681,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3682,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 86818,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3683,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3684,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3685,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3686,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3687,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3688,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3689,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3690,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3691,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 86893,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3692,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3693,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3694,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3695,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3696,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3697,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3698,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3699,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3700,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3701,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3702,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3703,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3704,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3705,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3706,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3707,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3708,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3709,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 88974,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3710,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3711,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "BKMR (Bayesian Kernel Machine Regression)"
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_16",
-    "type": "main_factors",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Human subjects, with particular focus on newborns, infants, and children in population-based and field-based epidemiological studies\nExposure: Environmental toxicants including environmental tobacco smoke, trace elements (lead, mercury, cadmium, arsenic), and industrial chemicals (endocrine-disrupting chemicals and persistent organic pollutants)\nComparison: Venipuncture-based blood sampling methods (gold standard) and plasma/serum sample analysis\nOutcome: Analytical method performance parameters including analytical sensitivity, specificity, sample volume requirements, contamination considerations, extracted blood volume estimation, biomarker stability, analyte recovery, and hematocrit effects\nPublication period: up to 2022-03-07 00:00:00\nEligible studies: To be included in this review, studies had to meet the following criteria: Measured environmental exposure biomarker (i.e., internal doses of exposure to exogenous pollutants, including native exogenous compounds and/or their metabolites). Used dried blood spot (DBS) sampling. Used human blood (not animal blood).\nExclude: Duplcate records；Records not retrieved，abstracts ony； Did not measure environmental；Did not use human blood，exposure biomarker\n\nTask: Which environmental biomarkers were specifically identified as needing improved detection limits in dried-blood-spot assays?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 3805,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3806,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 90376,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3807,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3808,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3809,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3810,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3811,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3812,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3813,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 90448,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3814,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3815,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3816,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3817,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3818,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3819,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3820,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3821,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3822,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3823,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3824,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3825,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3826,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3827,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3828,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3829,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3830,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3831,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3832,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3833,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3834,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3835,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3836,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3837,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3838,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3839,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3840,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3841,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3842,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "Arsenic, cadmium, and bisphenol A were identified as needing improved detection limits."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_17",
-    "type": "study_pattern",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Patients with hypertension\nIntervention: Biofeedback (including various modalities such as heart rate variability biofeedback)\nComparison: Control conditions (standard care or no biofeedback intervention)\nOutcome: Blood pressure changes (systolic and diastolic blood pressure)\nPublication period: up to 2024-01-16 00:00:00\nEligible studies: Inclusion criteria were as follows: assessment of biofeedback (all modalities e.g., neurological, cardiovascular, physical) on systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure, randomised control trial, published in English, adult participants aged 18 and over, with a diagnosis of hypertension (office reading of systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 140 and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 90 mmHg or home blood pressure readings of SBP ≥ 135 and/or DBP ≥ 85 mmHg) [14]. There was no specification for patients to be on specific types of hypertension treatment.\nExclude: Systematic reviews, editorial letters and conference abstracts were excluded.The main reasons for exclusion were study design not meeting the inclusion criteria (31%), articles not in English (18%), or outcomes outside of the inclusion criteria (14%).\n\nTask: During which period were most studies of biofeedback for hypertension published?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 3848,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3849,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3850,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3851,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3852,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3853,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3854,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3855,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3856,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3857,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3858,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3859,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 3860,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 90639,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "1970-1999"
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_18",
-    "type": "main_factors",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Individuals at increased risk for type 1 diabetes (pre-clinical stages) and individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes\nIntervention: Disease-modifying therapies, primarily immunomodulatory agents (including teplizumab and other immunotherapies) and therapies targeting beta cell health and function\nComparison: Placebo\nOutcome: Prevention or delay of clinical type 1 diabetes onset, preservation of endogenous insulin production (measured by C-peptide levels), beta cell function, and identification of features linked to treatment response (age, beta cell function measures, immune phenotypes)\nPublication period: from 1996-01-01 through 2022-02-22\nEligible studies: To qualify for review, studies must have tested a disease-modifying treatment in either initially non diabetic individuals at risk, or individuals with new-onset type 1 diabetes (within 1 year of diagnosis). Eligible study types included randomized controlled trials (RCTs); systematic reviews or meta analyses of RCTs, or post hoc analyses of RCTs. Selected primary trials or longitudinal follow-up papers of primary trials had a total sample size ≥50 and were published as a full paper in English in a peer-reviewed journal within 25 years of the search (2/21/1997-2/ 22/2022). Papers focusing on a precision approach to identify features associated with a treatment response were also included if the total sample size was ≥10. Longitudinal follow-up papers of RCTs were included if they addressed follow-up data on time to diabetes, C-peptide area under the curve (AUC), or included “precision analyses” of specific individual features or measures of treatment response.\nExclude: Studies were excluded if they included mixed participant populations (i.e., type 1 and type 2 diabetes) or populations with inconsistent definitions across papers (i.e., latent autoimmune diabetes in adults). Several additional key articles previously known to the group of experts that also met inclusion criteria but were not included in the search results because of search restrictions designed to improve search feasibility were also included in the analysis. While systematic reviews and meta analyses were included in the original search strategy to identify any existing meta-analyses aimed at precision approaches, none that met inclusion criteria were identified.\n\nTask: Which baseline factors were most frequently identified as being associated with differential treatment response in type 1 diabetes prevention studies?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 1290,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1291,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1292,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1293,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1294,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1295,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1296,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1297,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1298,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 22956,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1299,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1300,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1301,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1302,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1303,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1304,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1305,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1306,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1307,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1308,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1309,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1310,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1311,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1312,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1313,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1314,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 23082,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1315,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1316,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1317,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1318,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 23128,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1319,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1320,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 23111,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1321,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1322,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1323,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1324,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1325,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1326,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1327,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 23231,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1328,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1329,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1330,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1331,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1332,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1333,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1334,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1335,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1336,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 22957,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1337,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1338,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1339,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1340,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "The most frequently identified baseline factors were age and measures of beta-cell function."
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_19",
-    "type": "dominant_category",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Patients with bipolar disorder\nIntervention: L-type calcium channel antagonists (verapamil, diltiazem, nimodipine, nifedipine, methyoxyverapamil, isradipine)\nComparison: Placebo or standard treatments\nOutcome: Treatment efficacy for acute manic and depressive episodes, relapse prevention, and tolerability\nPublication period: up to 2016-02-15\nEligible studies: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTCC antagonists with placebo or any other active pharmacological treatment (all interventions could be in any preparation, dose, frequency, route of delivery or delivery setting). To assess efficacy and acceptability, we considered only double-blind studies. By contrast, for consideration of adverse effects, single blind or open RCTs were also included, and the most relevant non-randomised evidence was summarised as well. For RCTs with a crossover design, only results from the first period before crossover were considered. Cluster randomised trials were excluded. We included both published and unpublished studies. We allowed both fixed and flexible dose regimen designs. Patients of any age, of both sexes, of any ethnicity, based in any clinical setting, with a primary diagnosis of bipolar disorder (any subtype and according to any standardised diagnostic criteria) were included. In addition to studies using LTCC antagonists as monotherapy, trials in which an LTCC antagonist was used as add-on treatment (for example, with lithium) were also included, if the pre-existing treatments were evenly distributed in both the experimental and comparator intervention arms, and were continued throughout the study.\nExclude: We excluded only studies recruiting participants with a serious concomitant medical illness.\n\nTask: Which L-type calcium-channel antagonist was tested in all double-blind randomized controlled trials identified for bipolar disorder?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 1741,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1742,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1743,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1744,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1745,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 27218,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1746,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 27223,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1747,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1748,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1749,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1750,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1751,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1752,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1753,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1754,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1755,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1756,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1757,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1758,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1759,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 1760,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "verapamil"
-  },
-  {
-    "id": "science_descriptive_20",
-    "type": "study_pattern",
-    "query": "Evidence-synthesis scope:\nPopulation: Adults in obesity research studies\nExposure: Obesogenic environmental factors studied through non-traditional data sources (geospatial data/GIS, social networks, digital devices)\nComparison: Traditional data sources used in obesity research\nOutcome: Identification and characterization of non-traditional data sources, their applications across obesogenic environment domains (physical, sociocultural, political, economic), and obesity-related outcomes\nPublication period: from 2021-09-29 through 2021-12-22\nEligible studies: Studies were considered eligible if they met the following criteria for their inclusion: (1) to be orientated towards obesity research, using non-traditional data sources to characterise environment, such as data from geospatial data sources, social networks, or digital devices sources (such as accelerometers and GPS tracking devices); (2) to be written in English, Spanish or Portuguese; (3) to be available in full text; (4) to be published between 2016 and 2021; (5) to be original articles; and (6) to have been carried out in adult population.\nExclude: We excluded those articles that did not meet these conditions, as well as duplicate publications, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, validation studies, technical reports, and editorial articles.\n\nTask: Which non-traditional data source was used most often in obesity research on obesogenic environments?",
-    "instruction": "Using only the eligible studies within the scope stated in the query, provide the requested descriptive finding. Return only one concise, direct sentence or phrase. Do not include explanations, statistics, citations, or a JSON/list format.",
-    "evidence": [
-      {
-        "id": 7050,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7051,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7052,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 19172,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7053,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7054,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 19126,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7055,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7056,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7057,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7058,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7059,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7060,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7061,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7062,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7063,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7064,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7065,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7066,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7067,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7068,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7069,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7070,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7071,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7072,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7073,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7074,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7075,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7076,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7077,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7078,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7079,
-        "type": "article"
-      },
-      {
-        "id": 7080,
-        "type": "article"
-      }
-    ],
-    "ground_truth": "geospatial data within GIS"
-  }
-]