Contributing a custum eval to the repository. Updated Version. (#1124)

# Thank you for contributing an eval! ♥️

🚨 Please make sure your PR follows these guidelines, **failure to follow
the guidelines below will result in the PR being closed automatically**.
Note that even if the criteria are met, that does not guarantee the PR
will be merged nor GPT-4 access be granted. 🚨

**PLEASE READ THIS**:

In order for a PR to be merged, it must fail on GPT-4. We are aware that
right now, users do not have access, so you will not be able to tell if
the eval fails or not. Please run your eval with GPT-3.5-Turbo, but keep
in mind as we run the eval, if GPT-4 gets higher than 90% on the eval,
we will likely reject it since GPT-4 is already capable of completing
the task.

We plan to roll out a way for users submitting evals to see the eval
performance on GPT-4 soon. Stay tuned! Until then, you will not be able
to see the eval performance on GPT-4. **Starting April 10, the minimum
eval count is 15 samples, we hope this makes it easier to create and
contribute evals.**

Also, please note that we're using **Git LFS** for storing the JSON
files, so please make sure that you move the JSON file to Git LFS before
submitting a PR. Details on how to use Git LFS are available
[here](https://git-lfs.com).

## Eval details 📑

### Eval name

The <eval_name> is **population_span_extraction**
ID is **population_span_extraction.dev.v0**

### Eval description

The model is shown abstracts of clinical drug trials and tasked with
extracting the text spans that specify the population demographic of the
shown abstract. The population demographic can be but is not necessarily
specified in multiple seperate spans.

A previous version included examples containing 'problem' as part of the
population (as per PICO criteria labeling) as opposed to strictly
population demographics.
We are now resubmitting a different version, with different abstracts,
which contains only demographics annotations.

### What makes this a useful eval?

The Repository specifically asks for "Real-world use cases". Extracting
population spans from clinical study trials is immensly useful to
researchers who have to go over and compare large amounts of clinical
drug trials.

The eval dataset is generated with multiple different prompts and
statisfies all further critera posed by Open AI.

## Criteria for a good eval ✅

Below are some of the criteria we look for in a good eval. In general,
we are seeking cases where the model does not do a good job despite
being capable of generating a good response (note that there are some
things large language models cannot do, so those would not make good
evals).

Your eval should be:

- [x] Thematically consistent: The eval should be thematically
consistent. We'd like to see a number of prompts all demonstrating some
particular failure mode. For example, we can create an eval on cases
where the model fails to reason about the physical world.
- [x] Contains failures where a human can do the task, but either GPT-4
or GPT-3.5-Turbo could not.
- [x] Includes good signal around what is the right behavior. This means
either a correct answer for `Basic` evals or the `Fact` Model-graded
eval, or an exhaustive rubric for evaluating answers for the `Criteria`
Model-graded eval.
- [x] **Include at least 15 high-quality examples.**

If there is anything else that makes your eval worth including, please
document it below.

### Unique eval value

> Insert what makes your eval high quality that was not mentioned above.
(Not required)

## Eval structure 🏗️

Your eval should

- [x] Check that your data is in `evals/registry/data/{name}`
- [x] Check that your YAML is registered at
`evals/registry/evals/{name}.yaml`
- [x] Ensure you have the right to use the data you submit via this eval

(For now, we will only be approving evals that use one of the existing
eval classes. You may still write custom eval classes for your own
cases, and we may consider merging them in the future.)

## Final checklist 👀

### Submission agreement

By contributing to Evals, you are agreeing to make your evaluation logic
and data under the same MIT license as this repository. You must have
adequate rights to upload any data used in an Eval. OpenAI reserves the
right to use this data in future service improvements to our product.
Contributions to OpenAI Evals will be subject to our usual Usage
Policies (<https://platform.openai.com/docs/usage-policies>).

- [x] I agree that my submission will be made available under an MIT
license and complies with OpenAI's usage policies.

### Email address validation

If your submission is accepted, we will be granting GPT-4 access to a
limited number of contributors. Access will be given to the email
address associated with the commits on the merged pull request.

- [x] I acknowledge that GPT-4 access will only be granted, if
applicable, to the email address used for my merged pull request.

### Limited availability acknowledgment

We know that you might be excited to contribute to OpenAI's mission,
help improve our models, and gain access to GPT-4. However, due to the
requirements mentioned above and the high volume of submissions, we will
not be able to accept all submissions and thus not grant everyone who
opens a PR GPT-4 access. We know this is disappointing, but we hope to
set the right expectation before you open this PR.

- [x] I understand that opening a PR, even if it meets the requirements
above, does not guarantee the PR will be merged nor GPT-4 access be
granted.

### Submit eval

- [x] I have filled out all required fields of this form
- [x] I have used **Git LFS** for the Eval JSON data
- [ ] (Ignore if not submitting code) I have run `pip install
pre-commit; pre-commit install` and have verified that `black`, `isort`,
and `autoflake` are running when I commit and push

Failure to fill out all required fields will result in the PR being
closed.

### Eval JSON data

Since we are using Git LFS, we are asking eval submitters to add in as
many Eval Samples (at least 5) from their contribution here:

<details>
  <summary>View evals in JSON</summary>

  ### Eval
  ```
{"input": [{"role": "system", "content": "I want to know how this
abstract defines the Population Demographics. Please extract the
sections in the abstract that define the demographics."}, {"role":
"user", "content": "Efficacy of the dorzolamide/timolol fixed
combination versus latanoprost in the treatment of ocular hypertension
or glaucoma: combined analysis of pooled data from two large randomized
observer and patient-masked studies.\n\nIn previous analyses of primary
efficacy data from two randomized clinical trials, standard dosing
regimens of the dorzolamide/timolol fixed combination (COSOPT) and
latanoprost (XALATAN) were shown to have equivalent efficacy with regard
to reduction in mean daytime diurnal intraocular pressure (IOP). We
performed additional post hoc analyses of pooled data from these studies
to compare further the efficacy of the two treatments. The studies used
identical 3-month, parallel group, randomized, observer-masked and
patient-masked, multicenter designs. Patients with a baseline IOP > or =
24 mm Hg were randomized to either the 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol
combination eye drops twice daily (n = 273) or 0.005% latanoprost eye
drops once daily (n = 271). The IOP measurements were made at 8 AM, 10
AM, 2 PM, and 4 PM at the baseline visit and then on each of the 3
monthly assessment days. The following measures were analyzed on a post
hoc basis: 1) percentages of patients meeting target levels of IOP
reduction; 2) mean IOP reduction in those patients with high IOP (> or
=30 mmHg) at baseline; 3) mean IOP at each of the assessment time points
during a day. A total of 259 patients in the dorzolamide/timolol group
and 268 patients in the latanoprost group were included in the efficacy
analysis. At 3 months, both treatments showed similar efficacy with
regard to the percentages of patients who achieved target levels of IOP
reduction (e.g., 40% IOP reduction in 15% of dorzolamide/timolol
combination patients and 13% of latanoprost patients), mean IOP
reduction in those patients with high IOP at baseline (dorzolamide/
timolol combination, 12.5 mmHg, latanoprost, 12.6 mmHg), and mean IOP at
each time point during the day. By the measures used in this analysis,
the dorzolamide/timolol combination and latanoprost were equally
effective at lowering IOP in patients with ocular hypertension or
glaucoma."}], "ideal": "In the abstract, population demographics are
defined by the following spans: 'Patients with a baseline IOP > or = 24
mm Hg '"}
{"input": [{"role": "system", "content": "Extract the text spans
containing information on the Population Demographic from the following
abstract."}, {"role": "user", "content": "Twenty-four-hour control with
latanoprost-timolol-fixed combination therapy vs latanoprost
therapy.\n\nOBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 24-hour efficacy and safety of
the latanoprost-timolol maleate-fixed combination vs latanoprost therapy
in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma.\nMETHODS: A prospective,
observer-masked, crossover, active-controlled, randomized comparison in
which after a 6-week medicine-free period, patients were randomized to
either latanoprost-timolol-fixed combination therapy or latanoprost
therapy, both dosed once each evening, alone for 8 weeks. Patients were
then switched to the opposite treatment for 8 weeks. At the end of the
washout and treatment periods, a 24-hour diurnal curve was
performed.\nRESULTS: The baseline untreated mean +/- SD diurnal curve in
37 patients who completed the study was 24.2 +/- 2.0 mm Hg. The mean
diurnal curve was 19.2 +/- 2.6 mm Hg for those who received latanoprost
therapy alone and 16.7 +/- 2.1 mm Hg for those who received the fixed
combination therapy (P&lt;.001). The fixed combination therapy also
provided a lower absolute intraocular pressure level (1.5-2.9 mm Hg,
P&lt;.001) and a greater intraocular pressure reduction from the
untreated baseline (P&lt;.001). Stinging was statistically lower with
latanoprost therapy alone (P = .04), but itching was statistically
increased compared with the fixed combination therapy (P =
.04).\nCONCLUSION: The result of this study suggests that the
latanoprost-timolol-fixed combination compared with latanoprost therapy
alone provides improved intraocular pressure reduction over the 24-hour
diurnal curve and for each individual time point in patients with
primary open-angle glaucoma."}], "ideal": "In the abstract, population
demographics are defined by the following spans: ' patients with primary
open-angle glaucoma.'"}
{"input": [{"role": "system", "content": "Extract the text spans
containing information on the Population Demographic from the following
abstract."}, {"role": "user", "content": "A 12-week, randomized,
double-masked, multicenter study of the fixed combination of latanoprost
and timolol in the evening versus the individual components.\n\nPURPOSE:
To compare the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-combination
latanoprost and timolol applied in the evening with the concomitant use
of the individual components.\nDESIGN: Twelve-week, randomized,
double-masked, multicenter study.\nPARTICIPANTS: Five hundred seventeen
randomized patients with ocular hypertension; open-angle, pigmentary, or
exfoliation glaucoma; and baseline (after washout) intraocular pressure
(IOP) levels between 23 and 33 mmHg.\nMETHODS: Patients received either
the fixed combination of latanoprost and timolol once daily in the
evening and a placebo in the morning and evening or the unfixed
combination of latanoprost once daily in the evening and timolol in the
morning and evening. Study visits were at weeks 2, 6, and 12. MAIN
OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy end point was mean change from
baseline to week 12 in diurnal IOP (mean IOPs of 8 am, 12 pm, and 4 pm).
The fixed combination was considered noninferior to the unfixed
combination if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of
the difference was &lt;1.5 mmHg (analysis of covariance). Adverse events
were recorded at each visit.\nRESULTS: In all, 502 patients were
included in intent-to-treat analyses (fixed combination, n = 255;
unfixed combination, n = 247). For the fixed- and unfixed-combination
groups, mean baseline diurnal IOP levels were 25.4 mmHg and 25.2 mmHg,
respectively, and mean diurnal IOP reductions were 8.7 mmHg and 9.0 mmHg
(between-treatment difference, 0.3 mmHg; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.7 mmHg; P =
0.15). Both treatments were well tolerated.\nCONCLUSIONS: The fixed
combination of latanoprost and timolol administered once daily in the
evening is not inferior to the unfixed combination of latanoprost once
daily in the evening and timolol twice daily. The fixed combination
provides an effective and well-tolerated alternative to multiple
instillations."}], "ideal": "In the abstract, population demographics
are defined by the following spans: 'patients with ocular hypertension;
open-angle, pigmentary, or exfoliation glaucoma; and baseline (after
washout) intraocular pressure (IOP) levels between 23 and 33 mmHg'"}
{"input": [{"role": "system", "content": "This is from a clinical drug
trial abstract. Extract the parts specifying population demographics."},
{"role": "user", "content": "Efficacy of latanoprost or
fixed-combination latanoprost-timolol in patients switched from a
combination of timolol and a nonprostaglandin medication.\n\nPURPOSE: To
compare latanoprost with the fixed-combination latanoprost-timolol in
glaucoma or ocular hypertension patients switched from a combination
glaucoma therapy with timolol and another nonprostaglandin
medication.\nDESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial.\nMETHODS:
Glaucoma or ocular hypertension patients receiving a combined treatment
of timolol 0.5% and another nonprostaglandin medication (pilocarpine 4%,
alpha-agonist, or a topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor) underwent a
30-day washout of their medications. A masked observer then measured
their intraocular pressure (IOP). The subjects were randomized to either
latanoprost or fixed-combination latanoprost-timolol eyedrops to use
once daily at 7 am. The IOP was measured again 30 days after the
patients started using one of the study drugs by the same examiner at
the same time. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Comparison of the study
medications' hypotensive effect.\nRESULTS: Fifty-three eyes (28 in the
latanoprost group and 25 in the latanoprost-timolol group) from 28
patients were included in the study. The IOP reduction was greater in
both study groups compared with the previous combination therapy with
timolol and another nonprostaglandin medication in millimeters of
mercury (7.7+/-2.3 vs. 5.5+/-2.3, P&lt;0.001, for the latanoprost group;
8.5+/-3.5 vs. 6.3+/-2.7, P&lt;0.001, for the latanoprost-timolol group)
and percentage (35.8+/-8.2% vs. 25.6+/-8.9%, P&lt;0.001, for the
latanoprost group; 38.6+/-8.7% vs. 28.6+/-9.0%, P&lt;0.001, for the
latanoprost-timolol group). There was no statistical difference between
latanoprost and fixed-combination latanoprost-timolol in reducing IOP,
in either millimeters of mercury (P = 0.3) or percentage (P =
0.2).\nCONCLUSIONS: Both latanoprost and fixed-combination
latanoprost-timolol may be viable substitutes for timolol and another
nonprostaglandin medication in glaucoma or ocular hypertension
patients."}], "ideal": "In the abstract, population demographics are
defined by the following spans: 'Glaucoma or ocular hypertension
patients receiving a combined treatment of timolol 0.5% and another
nonprostaglandin medication (pilocarpine 4%, alpha-agonist, or a topical
carbonic anhydrase inhibitor)'"}
{"input": [{"role": "system", "content": "The Following text is an
abstract of a clinical drug trial that specifies a population
demographic. I want you to extract the text spans that contain these
informations."}, {"role": "user", "content": "A 6-week, double-masked,
parallel-group study of the efficacy and safety of travoprost 0.004%
compared with latanoprost 0:005%/timolol 0.5% in patients with primary
open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.\n\nOBJECTIVE: The objective
of this study was to directly compare the intraocular pressure
(IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of travoprost 0.004% eyedrops with
the fixed combination of latanoprost 0.005%/timolol 0.5% eyedrops in
patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular
hypertension.\nMETHODS: This was a randomized, double-masked,
multicenter, parallel-group, active-controlled study. Adult subjects
with open-angle glaucoma (with or without pseudoexfoliation or pigment
dispersion component) or ocular hypertension were eligible to
participate if their IOP was inadequately controlled with &gt; or =4
weeks of beta-blocker monotherapy, as indicated by IOP of 22 to 36 mm Hg
at 9 AM at screening. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to
receive placebo + travoprost or latanoprost/timolol + placebo. Patients
in the travoprost group administered travoprost at 9 PM and placebo at 9
AM; patients in the latanoprost/timolol group administered
latanoprost/timolol at 9 AM and placebo at 9 PM. IOP measurements were
performed using Goldmann applanation tonometry at 9 AM and 5 PM at the
week-2 and week-6 visits. Both volunteered and elicited reports of
adverse events were collected; all patients who were randomized and
received &gt; or =1 dose of study drug were included in the safety
analysis.\nRESULTS: One hundred ten patients were randomized, of whom
106 patients were evaluable (travoprost, n = 50; latanoprost/timolol, n
= 56). There were no statistically significant differences at baseline
between the treatment groups, based on age group, sex, race, iris color,
or diagnosis. Mean IOP values were not statistically different between
groups at baseline or during treatment. In the pooled results for 9 Am
assessment at weeks 2 and 6, mean (SEM) IOP reductions for travoprost
and latanoprost/timolol were 7.0 (0.5) and 6.4 (0.5) mm Hg, respectively
(P = NS). Adverse events related to therapy were mild in nature, and
there were no statistically significant differences between the 2
treatment groups. The most frequently experienced adverse events in the
travoprost group were ocular hyperemia (9.3%), foreign body sensation
(5.6%), abnormal vision (1.9%), allergic reaction (1.9%), conjunctivitis
(1.9%), dacryocystitis (1.9%), eye discharge (1.9%), eye pruritus
(1.9%), lid edema (1.9%), lid erythema (1.9%), and tearing (1.9%). In
the latanoprost/timolol group, the most frequently experienced adverse
events were cataract (1.8%), dry eyes (1.8%), eye pruritus (1.8%),
foreign body sensation (1.8%), and ocular hyperemia
(1.8%).\nCONCLUSIONS: Mean IOP changes from baseline for travoprost
0.004% and latanoprost 0.005%/timolol 0.5% fixed combination were not
significantly different at follow-up in these patients. Both medications
were well tolerated."}], "ideal": "In the abstract, population
demographics are defined by the following spans: 'in patients with
primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.', 'Adult subjects
with open-angle glaucoma (with or without pseudoexfoliation or pigment
dispersion component) or ocular hypertension', 'IOP was inadequately
controlled with &gt; or =4 weeks of beta-blocker monotherapy'"}
{"input": [{"role": "system", "content": "I want to know how this
abstract defines the Population Demographics. Please extract the
sections in the abstract that define the demographics."}, {"role":
"user", "content": "Comparison of the efficacy and safety of travoprost
with a fixed-combination of dorzolamide and timolol in patients with
open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.\n\nPURPOSE: The purpose of
this study was to compare travoprost (TRAV; travoprost 0.004%) and the
fixed-combination of dorzolamide/timolol (DTFC; dorzolamide 2.0%/timolol
maleate 0.5%) ophthalmic solutions for reducing intraocular pressure
(IOP) in patients with primary open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular
hypertension (OHT).\nMETHODS: This was a randomized single masked, study
with parallel controls. The TRAV group (n = 29) dosed once daily at 9:00
PM while the DTFC group (n = 27) dosed twice daily at 9:00 AM and 9:00
PM. IOP was measured at baseline, and following 3 weeks and 6 weeks of
treatment at 8:00 AM, 12:00 PM, 4:00 PM, and 8:00 PM.\nRESULTS: Mean
average IOP reductions from baseline during the course of the day were
7.5 (32.7%) and 7.1 (30.7%) mmHg for TRAV and 4.8 (23.1%) and 4.5
(21.7%) mmHg for DTFC at 3 weeks and 6 weeks, respectively. The greater
IOP reduction for patients receiving TRAV was statistically significant
at both the 3 and 6 week visits when averaged across all four time
points (p &lt; 0.01). The two products were well-tolerated over the
course of the 6 week study. Some factors such as taste perversion were
reported more often in the DTFC group.\nCONCLUSIONS: Travoprost
monotherapy provided better efficacy in terms of IOP reduction and
percentage of IOP reduction compared to dorzolamide 2.0%/timolol maleate
0.5% fixed combination."}], "ideal": "In the abstract, population
demographics are defined by the following spans: 'in patients with
primary open-angle glaucoma (OAG)', 'ocular hypertension (OHT)'"}
{"input": [{"role": "system", "content": "What is the Population
Demographic for the following abstract? Extract the text spans that
define it."}, {"role": "user", "content": "Efficacy and safety of
latanoprost versus travoprost in exfoliative glaucoma
patients.\n\nOBJECTIVE: To evaluate 24-hour intraocular pressure (IOP)
efficacy of latanoprost versus travoprost, each given every evening, in
exfoliative glaucoma patients.\nDESIGN: Prospective, observer-masked,
crossover comparison.\nPARTICIPANTS: Forty patients with exfoliation
glaucoma.\nMETHODS: Patients with a pressure of >24 mmHg were randomized
to latanoprost or travoprost for an 8-week treatment period after a
6-week medicine-free period. Patients were then switched to the opposite
treatment for the second period. At untreated baseline and at the end of
each treatment period the IOP was measured at 6 am, 10 am, 2 pm, 6 pm,
10 pm, and 2 am. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Diurnal IOP.\nRESULTS: The mean
24-hour IOP was 25.1+/-2.5 mmHg at baseline, 17.8+/-2.1 mmHg on
latanoprost, and 17.3+/-2.2 mmHg on travoprost (P = 0.001). Individual
time points were similar between treatments, except at 6 pm when
travoprost provided lower IOP (16.7+/-2.6 vs 17.9+/-2.5 mmHg, P<0.001).
Adverse events showed more conjunctival hyperemia with travoprost (n =
15) than latanoprost (n = 6; P = 0.03).\nCONCLUSIONS: Latanoprost and
travoprost both significantly reduce the 24-hour IOP from baseline in
exfoliative glaucoma, but travoprost may demonstrate a greater
hypotensive efficacy in the late afternoon."}], "ideal": "In the
abstract, population demographics are defined by the following spans:
'Patients with a pressure of >24 mmHg', 'exfoliative glaucoma
patients'"}
{"input": [{"role": "system", "content": "What is the Population
Demographic for the following abstract? Extract the text spans that
define it."}, {"role": "user", "content": "Comparison of the ocular
hypotensive effects of bimatoprost and timolol-dorzolamide combination
in patients with elevated intraocular pressure: a 6-month
study.\n\nPURPOSE: To compare the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety
of topical bimatoprost and timolol-dorzolamide combination in patients
with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension during 6
months of treatment.\nMETHODS: A sample of 65 patients with a diagnosis
of POAG or ocular hypertension were randomized to receive either
bimatoprost 0.03% once daily or timolol-dorzolamide combination twice
daily. Study visits occurred at baseline and after 2 weeks and 1, 3 and
6 months of therapy. Intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements were
performed at 12.00 hours at all study visits and also at 08.00 hours and
16.00 hours at baseline and 6-month visits. At each visit, local and
systemic side-effects that occurred during the treatment period were
recorded. Student's t-test was used to compare the differences between
IOP values.\nRESULTS: Differences in IOP between the bimatoprost and
timolol-dorzolamide groups were statistically insignificant at all study
visits (p > 0.05). In the bimatoprost-treated group, the IOP reduction
was 6.2 +/- 1.8 mmHg, whereas it was 6.5 +/- 2.3 mmHg in the
timolol-dorzolamide group after 6 months of treatment. The difference
was not statistically significant (p = 0.48).\nCONCLUSIONS: The
IOP-lowering efficacies of bimatoprost and timolol-dorzolamide
combination were similar over a 6-month follow-up. Both bimatoprost and
the timolol-dorzolamide combination were well tolerated. Bimatoprost can
be used as a longterm monotherapy agent in the treatment of POAG and
ocular hypertension."}], "ideal": "In the abstract, population
demographics are defined by the following spans: 'patients with primary
open-angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension'"}
{"input": [{"role": "system", "content": "What is the Population
Demographic for the following abstract? Extract the text spans that
define it."}, {"role": "user", "content": "Comparing the fixed
combination brimonidine-timolol versus fixed combination
dorzolamide-timolol in patients with elevated intraocular
pressure.\n\nPURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of fixed combination
brimonidine-timolol (FCBT) versus fixed combination dorzolamide-timolol
(FCDT) given twice daily in patients with primary open angle glaucoma
(POAG) or ocular hypertension (OH).\nDESIGN: Prospective, multicentre,
masked-observer, crossover comparison.\nPARTICIPANTS: Sixteen patients
with POAG and 14 with OH.\nMETHODS: The participants of the study were
washed out from their previous medication and randomized to fixed FCBT
or FCDT for the first 4-week treatment period. Subjects then were washed
for 4 weeks and started on the opposite medication for the second 4-week
period. Intraocular pressure (IOP) was measured with a Goldmann
applanation tonometer at 8:00 a.m., 12:00 noon and 4:00 p.m. at each
baseline and at the end of each treatment period. Unsolicited ocular
adverse events were also recorded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of
the IOP lowering effect of FCBT and FCDT.\nRESULTS: The baseline mean
diurnal IOP for all 30 subjects (30 eyes) was 22.9 +/- 1.6 mmHg. Both
fixed combinations significantly reduced IOP compared with baseline (p
&lt; 0.00001). The mean diurnal IOP following 4 weeks of therapy was
15.0 +/- 2.1 mmHg for FCBT and 15.4 +/- 2.1 mmHg for FCDT (p = 0.510).
The mean diurnal IOP reduction was 7.8 +/- 1.9 mmHg for FCBT and 7.4 +/-
1.8 mmHg for FCDT (p = 0.430). Overall, 14 subjects complained about
ocular adverse events: two only for FCBT, seven only for FCDT and five
for both drugs. Although there was no significant difference between the
number of subjects that reported ocular adverse events with FCBT (n = 7)
and FCDT (n = 12) (p = 0.359), FCDT caused more ocular stinging upon
instillation (n = 9) than FCBT (n = 1) (p = 0.027).\nCONCLUSION: This
study suggests that FCBT and FCDT, each given twice daily, have similar
efficacy in patients with POAG or OH."}], "ideal": "In the abstract,
population demographics are defined by the following spans: 'patients
with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) or ocular hypertension (OH)',
'patients with POAG', 'OH'"}
{"input": [{"role": "system", "content": "I want to know how this
abstract defines the Population Demographics. Please extract the
sections in the abstract that define the demographics."}, {"role":
"user", "content": "A comparison of the safety and intraocular pressure
lowering of bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination versus
latanoprost/timolol fixed combination in patients with open-angle
glaucoma.\n\nPURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of a once
daily evening dose of the latanoprost/timolol fixed combination (LTFC)
with that of a once-daily evening dose of the bimatoprost/timolol fixed
combination (BTFC) in patients with open-angle glaucoma with elevated
intraocular pressure (IOP) insufficiently responsive to monotherapy with
prostaglandin analogues/prostamides.\nDESIGN: Prospective, randomized,
evaluator masked, single-center study.\nPARTICIPANTS: 36 patients with a
diagnosis of open-angle glaucoma, with or without pseudoexfoliation, and
inadequate control of IOP, insufficiently responsive to monotherapy with
prostaglandin analogues/prostamides. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary
end-points were the change in IOP at 9:00 am from baseline to week 4,
and the difference between treatment groups in the mean diurnal IOP
reduction from baseline to week 4.\nRESULTS: BTFC provided significantly
greater mean diurnal IOP reduction [mean (standard deviation)] 2.8 (0.9)
mmHg, compared with LTFC 2.1 (0.6) mmHg, p = 0.0214. Both treatments
significantly reduced the IOP from baseline at each IOP time-point
measured, p < 0.0001, and for the mean diurnal IOP; p = 0.0049 for the
LTFC, and p < 0.0001 for the BTFC. There were no significant differences
in average hyperemia scores among groups, 1.25 (0.5) vs. 1.62 (0.69), p
= 0.3835, for the LTFC and the BTFC, respectively.\nCONCLUSIONS: The
results of this study showed a significantly higher IOP-lowering effect
of a once-daily evening dose of the BTFC compared to that of a
once-daily evening administration of the LTFC."}], "ideal": "In the
abstract, population demographics are defined by the following spans:
'patients with open-angle glaucoma with elevated intraocular pressure
(IOP) insufficiently responsive to monotherapy with prostaglandin
analogues/prostamides'"}

  ```
</details>

Author: IGES-Institut

evals/registry/data/population_span_extraction/samples.jsonl

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:0dce5e57cb3fe18df839314fcc0047ae4db9cc97af6f7cdcfd81c23ec788c587
+size 1076022

evals/registry/evals/population_span_extraction.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+population_span_extraction:
+  id: population_span_extraction.dev.v0
+  description: The model is shown abstracts of clinical drug trials and tasked with extracting the text spans that specify the population demographic of the shown abstract. The population demographic can be but is not necessarily specified in multiple seperate spans.
+  metrics: [accuracy]
+
+population_span_extraction.dev.v0:
+  class: evals.elsuite.modelgraded.classify:ModelBasedClassify
+  args:
+    samples_jsonl: population_span_extraction/samples.jsonl
+    eval_type: cot_classify
+    modelgraded_spec: fact