The July 2025 format in one view
The July 2025 AIIMS prospectus described INI-CET as a computer-based test with 200 objective questions in 180 minutes. Candidates could encounter both single-correct and multiple-correct answer questions. The paper was divided into four timed parts, each containing 50 questions for 45 minutes. That timing matters: the full three hours were not a single freely managed block. When a part ended, the next timed part began, so a candidate could not treat unused minutes as transferable across the whole paper.
This is a historical pattern, not a confirmed 2027 format. Use the prospectus for the exact January or July session you apply to, including any later amendment. The AIIMS Key Dates page is useful for calendar discovery but does not replace the session prospectus.
Marking and how to read a practice score
The prospectus awarded one mark for a correct response, deducted one-third of a mark for an incorrect response, and gave zero for an unanswered item or one marked for review. A useful practice calculation is therefore: correct answers minus one-third of incorrect answers. For example, 120 correct, 45 incorrect and 35 unanswered would produce 105 marks under that scheme: 120 − (45 ÷ 3). This is arithmetic based on the July 2025 rule, not a prediction of rank or a current-cycle score formula.
Do not read “multiple-correct” as a licence to assume partial credit. The prospectus described the penalty and marks but the material reviewed here does not establish a general partial-credit rule. Practice according to the instructions in the applicable official session document and the on-screen tutorial. If a future notice changes question types or scoring, discard this historical calculation.
A practical way to practise the timed parts
Build four separate 45-minute blocks of 50 questions when simulating the July 2025 format. Use a timer that stops each block at the boundary, and record attempted, correct, incorrect and unanswered counts separately. This makes it easier to see whether a lower score comes from knowledge gaps, avoidable negative marking or poor pacing. Treat this as a study method derived from the published structure, not an official AIIMS recommendation.
For review, mark each error as a content gap, a misread question, a rushed choice or an uncertainty where guessing was not worthwhile. Revisit the reasoning rather than memorising only the answer. Do not compare raw practice marks directly with another session’s percentile: the sources opened for this page do not establish a cross-session conversion.
What is still unconfirmed
No current January or July 2027 prospectus was opened in the bounded source check. The 200-question count, 180-minute duration, four-part timing, question types and marking scheme above must therefore stay attached to July 2025. Before planning a mock series, compare the next official prospectus with this historical baseline and check later notices for changes.
Use the marking rule deliberately in practice
A mock score is more useful when you can explain how it was produced. Under the July 2025 rule, one mark was added for a correct answer, one-third was deducted for an incorrect answer, and an unanswered or marked-for-review item received zero. A simple worksheet can list total questions, attempted questions, correct answers, incorrect answers and unanswered questions, then calculate the net mark. Check that the counts add to the full paper before comparing two practice sessions.
For instance, a candidate with 110 correct and 30 incorrect responses would have a net score of 100 under that historical rule: 110 minus 10. This example explains the arithmetic only. It says nothing about percentile, rank or a future score conversion. The marks depend on the applicable session rule and the answer key, and the source reviewed does not support treating practice results as an admission prediction.
You can also compare accuracy among attempted questions: correct divided by correct plus incorrect. Keep this separate from net marks because a high attempt count can increase both correct answers and penalties. Review whether errors came from a topic gap, a misread stem, a rushed answer or an unjustified guess. That diagnosis helps adjust your revision and question-selection strategy without claiming an official target attempt rate.
Because the July 2025 paper used separate timed parts, review the score for each part as well as the overall total. A strong total can conceal a section where you consistently run out of time. Practise under the same timing only when deliberately simulating that historical format, and recheck the next official prospectus before using the same mock structure for a new cycle.
Adjust practice after each mock
Keep a short record of the format used for every mock: question count, time limit, whether parts were independently timed, and the scoring rule. This makes comparisons fair. A mock with a different penalty or unrestricted timing is not directly comparable to the July 2025 structure. If the next official notice changes the pattern, update the mock settings and mark the date you changed them. This avoids training for an old format by accident while preserving past scores as historical practice data.