Recognise the diagnosis. Make the decision. Find the connection. The iatroX games collection now brings together three different daily activities: rounds, stat and clinical connections. The new additions, stat and clinical connections, sit alongside the existing rounds diagnosis challenge rather than replacing it.
The idea is straightforward. A short clinical activity can be enjoyable in its own right, give colleagues something concrete to discuss and leave you with a point worth understanding better. That does not require every reader to want the same kind of puzzle, or every daily visit to become an examination session.
Choose the question that interests you today
Start with rounds when you would like an unfolding diagnostic mystery. Choose stat when you would rather decide what should happen next. Open clinical connections when the appeal is finding a relationship between concepts that initially seem disconnected.
The common selector and consistent visual identity make it possible to move between the activities without pretending they share one set of rules. The games entry point provides the place to begin; the individual introductions explain each format in more detail.
There is no hierarchy in that choice. A concept puzzle is not reserved for junior students, and a decision scene does not belong exclusively to doctors. The relevant starting point is the activity you would enjoy and the subject matter you are comfortable exploring, with the stated clinical context kept in view.
rounds: one clinical story, revealed in stages
rounds presents a daily case and asks you to identify the diagnosis in up to six guesses. Read the opening clue, enter a diagnosis and submit your answer. An incorrect guess reveals further information, giving you an opportunity to reconsider the interpretation.
The changing picture is central to the experience. A detail from the history, an examination finding or an investigation can change which explanation seems most convincing. The aim is not simply to recognise a familiar word, but to work out why the developing case supports one diagnosis over the alternatives you considered.
A rounds result such as 3/6 means the diagnosis was found on the third guess. It does not mean three questions out of six were correct. After the case, the explanation, distinguishing features and clinical pearl provide something to review beyond the final label. The rounds introduction is the fuller guide to its clues, archive and sharing.
stat: three independent clinical decisions
stat contains three scenes in each daily edition: "Who first?", "What next?" and "What would you change?" These address priorities, the next action and review of an existing plan. The scenes are independent, so an early error does not determine the later scenarios.
The initial scoring awards two points for each preferred answer and zero for alternatives, producing a total out of six. Optional confident-or-unsure judgements are recorded separately. A result of 4/6 therefore means two preferred decisions across three scenes, not four questions answered correctly.
The launch series contains 50 editions and 150 decisions in UK clinical contexts. The final debrief explains the choices and links to supporting sources. The stat introduction explains the format, while the confidence guide explores why an answer that surprised you can be worth discussing even after the points are settled.
clinical connections: sixteen concepts and four relationships
clinical connections starts with sixteen tiles. Find four groups of four by identifying the relationships between the terms. These can involve mechanisms, anatomy, physiology, laboratory patterns or pharmacological actions. A correct submission reveals a labelled group; the final group completes by elimination.
There are four permitted incorrect submissions, alongside hints, shuffle and clear controls. The score out of 1,000 combines completed groups, a speed bonus and deductions for mistakes and hints. The timer continues through interruptions and reloads, while eligible signed-in, hint-free completions can set the day's fastest record, attributed by profession and country rather than personal name.
The initial collection includes 50 puzzles, 200 groups and 50 application questions. The optional application question has separate feedback and does not change the time or points. The clinical connections introduction explains how the competitive puzzle leads into a quieter opportunity to examine the underlying idea.
Three result formats, not one combined ability score
The results describe different activities. Fewer guesses are favourable in rounds. More points are favourable in stat and clinical connections. A completion time belongs to the timed grouping puzzle, while stat's confidence judgement adds a separate reflection prompt.
There is no meaningful way to turn those results into a single clinical-ability ranking. Solving a diagnosis early, choosing a preferred next step and grouping concepts quickly require different responses under different rules. None is a validated measure of workplace competence or examination readiness.
That does not make comparison pointless. It makes the comparison more specific. Ask a colleague which clue changed their interpretation, which stat decision felt least certain or which connection was hardest to explain. The answer is likely to be more interesting than an attempt to decide who won medicine for the day.
What the games share
All three provide daily editions, complete free activities, explanations, archives and shareable results. The common structure makes returning straightforward, while the different mechanics provide variety. You can follow today's shared challenge or explore an earlier edition when a particular topic appeals.
The archive is useful for a second reason: not every good learning moment happens on the day a challenge appears. A tutor can choose an older activity in advance, and colleagues can agree to discuss the same previous edition without revealing the answer to today's game.
Sharing works best when it protects the independent attempt. Use the game's result rather than a screenshot containing a diagnosis, preferred action or revealed group. The colleague-sharing guide offers suggested social uses without implying that team leagues or head-to-head modes are built into the products.
Play one, discuss one, explore one
A practical approach is to choose one activity, review what was interesting and decide whether there is a useful next step. You might discuss the reasoning with a colleague, read a linked source or move into relevant question practice. You might simply finish the challenge and return another day.
Where suitable mappings exist, related questions can connect an edition with a selected question library. That availability depends on the edition and bank. The exam catalogue remains a separate manual route when no direct continuation is offered or when you would prefer to follow your existing revision plan.
For qualified clinicians, a game can also prompt a focused learning question. The separate CPD workflow is where a substantive activity and personal reflection can be organised; playing alone does not automatically create professional credit.
The collection is an invitation, not another daily obligation. One challenge can be enough. The point of adding different formats is to make the first useful interaction easier to find, then leave you in control of how far to take it.
Frequently asked questions
Which iatroX games are new?
stat and clinical connections are the new additions. rounds remains the existing daily diagnosis game, now presented alongside two different activities.
Do I need to complete all three each day?
No. Choose the activity that interests you. Each is a complete free challenge, and there is no need to treat the collection as a daily checklist.
Are the three scores directly comparable?
No. rounds reports guesses, stat scores three decisions out of six, and clinical connections combines completion, speed and deductions into points out of 1,000.