Content and Educational Governance

Published questions are subject to human editorial review before release.

Questions are mapped to the relevant FRCR 2A subspecialty, topic and content area so that each item can be considered both on its own merits and within the wider bank.

Editorial review considers clinical accuracy, clarity, relevance to FRCR 2A preparation, clinical realism, distractor quality and whether the information provided supports a single best answer.

Questions are also considered for unnecessary overlap with existing content. Similar subject matter may be retained where it tests a genuinely different presentation, imaging discriminator or management decision.

The keyed answer, explanation and classification are reviewed alongside the question. Content that does not meet the required standard may be revised, withheld or removed.

Individual questions are reviewed in the context of the wider bank as well as in isolation. Periodic bank-level review may consider:

• curriculum coverage and important gaps;
• topics that are disproportionately represented;
• direct duplicates and near-duplicate questions;
• repeated concepts that add little additional educational value.

The aim is not to eliminate all conceptual repetition. Repeated exposure can be useful when the same principle is tested through a meaningfully different case or decision.

Mock papers receive additional paper-level review for curriculum breadth, unnecessary repetition, overall difficulty and balance. Mock-only questions may be held separately from routine practice to preserve an unseen-paper experience.

Question count is not preserved at the expense of quality. Weak, outdated or unnecessarily repetitive content may be revised, replaced or retired.

Mock papers are independent educational materials and do not reproduce or claim to predict official Royal College of Radiologists examination papers.

Questions are developed using appropriate educational and clinical source material, which may include recognised radiology textbooks, clinical guidance, peer-reviewed literature, professional-society guidance and established classification or reporting systems.

Artificial intelligence is not treated as a clinical evidence source.

Where guidance or accepted practice differs, the issue may be considered during editorial review and the content may be qualified, revised or excluded where appropriate.

AI may assist with:

• drafting and wording refinement;
• development of answer options and distractors;
• consistency and ambiguity checks;
• explanation structure;
• formatting and metadata;
• personalised answer support.

AI does not independently approve or publish questions.

Every published question remains subject to human editorial oversight.

Published questions include an approved keyed answer and editorial explanation.

Personalised AI answer support is supplementary. It does not override the approved keyed answer or automatically alter the underlying question record.

Publication does not end the review process. Candidate performance and feedback can be used to identify questions that merit further editorial review.

Signals may include:

• the proportion of candidates selecting the keyed answer;
• distractor selection patterns;
• unusual response distributions;
• repeated candidate challenges or reports;
• questions behaving substantially easier or harder than intended.

Performance statistics are used as a trigger for review, not as an automatic decision rule. A difficult question is not necessarily a poor question, and an easy question may still test an important core concept.

Flagged questions may be re-examined for ambiguity, answer specificity, distractor quality, explanation consistency and current clinical validity. Following review, a question may remain unchanged, be refined, undergo substantial revision or be retired.

Candidates can report possible factual errors, ambiguity, outdated content, explanation inconsistencies or technical problems through the platform.

Concerns are considered according to their nature and the available evidence. Content may be corrected, revised, temporarily withheld or removed where appropriate.

Suitably qualified reviewers may be asked to review selected content, specialist topics or questions requiring additional consideration.

The 2A Bank does not encourage candidates to disclose confidential live examination content.

No official examination questions are knowingly reproduced.

Question development must not use identifiable patient information.

The 2A Bank is an independent commercial educational resource operated by BELMAR RADIOLOGY LIMITED.

It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Royal College of Radiologists.

References to teaching organisations, NHS bodies, universities or training programmes must not imply endorsement or ownership unless a specific written agreement exists.