Skip to content
← Back to explorer

PeruMedQA: Benchmarking Large Language Models (LLMs) on Peruvian Medical Exams -- Dataset Construction and Evaluation

Rodrigo M. Carrillo-Larco, Jesus Lovón Melgarejo, Manuel Castillo-Cara, Gusseppe Bravo-Rocca · Sep 15, 2025 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Low

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Signal confidence: 0.35

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medical large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in answering medical examinations. However, the extent to which this high performance is transferable to medical questions in Spanish and from a Latin American country remains unexplored. This knowledge is crucial as LLM-based medical applications gain traction in Latin America. AIMS: To build a dataset of questions medical examinations taken by Peruvian physicians pursuing specialty training; to fine-tune a LLM on this dataset; to evaluate and compare the performance in terms of accuracy between vanilla LLMs and the fine-tuned LLM. METHODS: We curated PeruMedQA, a multiple-choice question-answering (MCQA) dataset containing 8,380 questions spanning 12 specialties (2018-2025). We selected ten medical LLMs, including medgemma-4b-it and medgemma-27b-text-it, and developed zero-shot task specific prompts to answer the questions. We employed parameter-efficient fine tuning (PEFT) and low-rand adaptation (LoRA) to fine-tune medgemma-4b-it utilizing all questions except those from 2025 (test set). RESULTS: Medgemma-27b showed the highest accuracy across all specialities, achieving the highest score of 89.29% in Psychiatry; yet, in two specialties, OctoMed-7B exhibited slight superiority: Neurosurgery with 77.27% and 77.38, respectively; and Radiology with 76.13% and 77.39%, respectively. Across specialties, most LLMs with <10 billion parameters exhibited <50% of correct answers. The fine-tuned version of medgemma-4b-it emerged victorious against all LLMs with <10 billion parameters and rivaled a LLM with 70 billion parameters across various examinations. CONCLUSIONS: For medical AI applications and research that require knowledge bases from Spanish-speaking countries and those exhibiting similar epidemiological profile to Peru's, interested parties should utilize medgemma-27b-text-it.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.35 (below strong-reference threshold).
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: BACKGROUND: Medical large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in answering medical examinations.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: BACKGROUND: Medical large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in answering medical examinations.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: BACKGROUND: Medical large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in answering medical examinations.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Not found

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: BACKGROUND: Medical large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in answering medical examinations.

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: AIMS: To build a dataset of questions medical examinations taken by Peruvian physicians pursuing specialty training; to fine-tune a LLM on this dataset; to evaluate and compare the performance in terms of accuracy between vanilla LLMs and the fine-tuned LLM.

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Helpful for staffing comparability.

Evidence snippet: BACKGROUND: Medical large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in answering medical examinations.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: Medicine
  • Signal basis: Structured extraction plus abstract evidence.

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Signal confidence: 0.35
  • Known cautions: low_signal, possible_false_positive

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

BACKGROUND: Medical large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in answering medical examinations.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • BACKGROUND: Medical large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in answering medical examinations.
  • However, the extent to which this high performance is transferable to medical questions in Spanish and from a Latin American country remains unexplored.
  • This knowledge is crucial as LLM-based medical applications gain traction in Latin America.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • AIMS: To build a dataset of questions medical examinations taken by Peruvian physicians pursuing specialty training; to fine-tune a LLM on this dataset; to evaluate and compare the performance in terms of accuracy between vanilla LLMs and…
  • RESULTS: Medgemma-27b showed the highest accuracy across all specialities, achieving the highest score of 89.29% in Psychiatry; yet, in two specialties, OctoMed-7B exhibited slight superiority: Neurosurgery with 77.27% and 77.38,…
  • Across specialties, most LLMs with <10 billion parameters exhibited <50% of correct answers.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now