Your PassMedicine or Pastest percentage describes performance on the questions you attempted, under the conditions in which you attempted them. It cannot be converted directly into the MRCP Part 1 pass mark of 450. That official figure is a scaled examination score, not 45%, and not a target percentage for a commercial bank.
The Federation's pass-mark explanation, checked on 24 September 2026, states that the Part 1 passing score changed to 450 from the 2026/1 examination. This article is published by iatroX and includes iatroX as a possible tool for addressing the weaknesses behind a score, not as a validated predictor of passing.
Why 450 is not 45%
A raw score counts marks obtained on a particular paper. A percentage expresses those marks relative to the available total. A scaled score places examination performance on a reporting scale using the examining body's assessment methods.
The Federation describes equating and item-response methods intended to account for differences in examination difficulty. The scale is not created by simply placing a decimal point in a percentage. Dividing 450 by an assumed maximum, or multiplying a question-bank average until it resembles 450, does not reconstruct the official process.
This distinction also prevents a second mistake: treating the official passing standard as a stable percentage for every set of practice questions. A deliberately difficult topic block and a broadly representative mixed paper can produce different percentages without proving that the learner's underlying ability changed between them.
Four numbers that should not share one label
A dashboard can make several different measurements look comparable because all of them end in a percentage sign. Their denominators, exposure histories and conditions may differ substantially.
| Score | What it can tell you | What it cannot establish by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Cumulative bank average | Your recorded performance across the selected history of attempts | Current ability on unfamiliar material if early attempts, repeats or topic selection dominate |
| Recent unseen-question result | How you performed on that recent unfamiliar sample | Coverage of the entire syllabus or a probability of passing |
| Repeated-question result | Whether previously encountered material is now easier to answer | Whether the explanation transfers to a genuinely different question |
| Timed mock result | Performance on that paper under the recorded conditions | Equivalence to an official scaled score or independence if the items were familiar |
This is an interpretation framework, not a judgement that one provider's percentage is inherently more valid than another's. The relevant question is what each number actually measures.
A hypothetical candidate dashboard
Consider this original fictional example. Leila's cumulative average is 61% across 1,000 attempts. A recent unseen mixed block gives 28 correct answers from 40 questions, or 70%. A repeated weak-topic block gives 36 from 40, or 90%. A timed mock gives 66 from 100, or 66%.
None of these observations is necessarily inconsistent. The cumulative figure includes earlier learning. The recent mixed block is a small new sample. The repeated block combines learning with possible answer recognition. The mock includes sustained timing and a different selection of content.
The numbers do not justify saying that Leila is "really a 90% candidate" or "only a 61% candidate". They support narrower questions. Did the mock reveal time pressure? Was the recent unseen block unusually strong in familiar topics? Can she explain the repeated questions without remembering their wording?
Now add a fictional confidence record. Leila marks several correct answers as guesses and several incorrect answers as highly certain. Those observations may be more useful for choosing the next study session than another comparison with a friend's average. A confident misconception and an uncertain correct answer require different follow-up, even though a simple score treats each as either right or wrong.
Why PassMedicine and Pastest results may disagree
The PassMedicine and Pastest products are separate commercial learning systems. Their public product descriptions, reviewed on 24 September 2026, do not establish a common calibrated scale that lets a candidate translate one bank percentage into the other.
Several ordinary explanations should be checked before attributing the difference to quality or personal failure. You may have attempted different topics, different numbers of questions or different proportions of repeats. One session may have allowed explanation access while another required uninterrupted decisions. A mock taken after a long working day is not conducted under the same conditions as a relaxed topic session.
Even the word "average" needs a denominator. Does the screen refer to all attempts, unique questions, the latest attempt or a selected period? Where a provider does not make that clear, ask rather than inventing a definition. A precise-looking number is not self-explanatory.
What should actually change your revision plan?
Look first for recurring mechanisms. "Cardiology is weak" is a starting label, not yet an actionable diagnosis. Are you failing to identify the relevant finding, confusing a mechanism, overlooking a qualifier or answering a different question from the one asked?
Then check breadth. A high result in repeatedly selected favourite topics can coexist with neglected domains. Preserve some mixed, unfamiliar practice so that your study plan is not governed entirely by what feels rewarding.
Next examine time and answer commitment. Record which items remained unfinished, which consumed disproportionate time and which changed after an unsupported second guess. The goal is not to prohibit changing answers; it is to identify whether the change followed a new reason or only discomfort.
Finally, inspect uncertain correct answers. Before reopening the explanation, state why the preferred answer fits and why the strongest alternative does not. Inability to do that does not erase the mark, but it identifies a learning task the score concealed.
Another question bank or another reassurance purchase?
A second bank can be useful when your current material is extensively familiar, when a particular explanation style is not resolving a persistent gap, or when you need an independent source of unfamiliar practice. Those are concrete reasons to inspect another product.
It is less useful when the only goal is obtaining a more comforting percentage. Switching platforms changes the sample and interface; it does not automatically resolve the reason for errors. A lower first result in the new bank may create more anxiety without supplying a better study plan.
Before buying, write the question the new resource must answer. For example: "Can I apply the distinction to unfamiliar wording without explanation access?" Then preserve the relevant sample for that purpose. Do not immediately exhaust all new questions in supported practice and later describe them as unseen assessment.
Turning the score into targeted follow-up
Per iatroX product information, September 2026, its Socratic Tutor opens on an attempted question and asks targeted follow-ups to explore the learner's misconception. Adaptive sequencing and spaced repetition can support subsequent practice. These are learning functions, not proof that iatroX can translate a bank score into the official MRCP result.
A useful sequence is to attempt, explain, identify the missing distinction and return to an unfamiliar question later. The explanation should be checked where the underlying claim matters. Ask-iatroX and free question access remain genuinely free without a trial expiry or verification gate; more extensive tutoring and the other paid learning tools are a separate subscription.
A decision without a false threshold
Stay with PassMedicine or Pastest when it provides sufficient unfamiliar practice and your main problem is incomplete review. Add a different resource when it supplies a specific missing explanation or assessment opportunity. Seek support from a supervisor or educator when uncertainty about readiness remains important, particularly after an unsuccessful sitting.
For iatroX, the appropriate role is targeted follow-up where its learning methods help. For every platform, the standard is the same: explain what the score measures, preserve the uncertainty and make the next revision decision more precise. No invented conversion to 450 is required.
Frequently asked questions
Does the MRCP Part 1 pass mark of 450 mean 45%?
No. The Federation's 450 passing score, applicable from the 2026/1 examination, is a scaled examination score rather than a commercial question-bank percentage.
What PassMedicine or Pastest percentage guarantees a pass?
No guaranteed threshold is established here. Interpretation requires attention to unfamiliarity, topic coverage, timing and the measurement's relationship to actual examination outcomes.
Should I ignore a high score on repeated questions?
No, because it can indicate useful learning of previously difficult material. Keep it separate from unfamiliar-question assessment and test whether the reasoning transfers to a different case.