Reassessing High-Performing LLMs on Polish Medical Exams: True Competence or Bias-Driven Performance?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12250v1
• Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:52:24 GMT
• Title: Reassessing High-Performing LLMs on Polish Medical Exams: True Competence or Bias-Driven Performance?
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) in medicine are mainly evaluated using multiple-choice question answering (MCQA)<n>We introduce an expanded and more challenging benchmark based on Polish medical exams, adding over 15,000 questions, two new domains, and four structural modifications.
• Score: 2.0293323907392584
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) in medicine are mainly evaluated using multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which can overestimate real clinical ability due to guessing strategies and answer biases. To address these limitations, we introduce an expanded and more challenging benchmark based on Polish medical exams, adding over 15,000 questions, two new domains, and four structural modifications that reduce MCQA-specific artifacts and better test reasoning. We evaluate 21 LLMs and show that evaluation design strongly affects results. Under our harder setup, the best model (Qwen3.5-122B) drops by 28.4 and 31 pp on English and Polish exams, respectively. Despite low evidence of data contamination, standard MCQA scores do not reliably reflect true medical competence. To facilitate further research, we make our benchmark publicly available.

Related papers

• NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment [54.4265627247104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences.<n>Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score.<n>We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T08:34:56Z)
• QuarkMedBench: A Real-World Scenario Driven Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models [8.050059911826338]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel on standardized medical exams, but high scores often fail to translate to high-quality responses for real-world medical queries.<n>We introduce QuarkMedBench, an ecologically valid benchmark tailored for real-world medical LLM assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-14T01:51:43Z)
• MedArena: Comparing LLMs for Medicine-in-the-Wild Clinician Preferences [50.71326426975699]
  We present MedArena, an interactive evaluation platform for medical large language models (LLMs)<n>Given a clinician-provided query, MedArena presents responses from two randomly selected models and asks the user to select the preferred response.<n>Out of 1571 preferences collected across 12 LLMs up to November 1, 2025, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-4o were the top three models by Bradley-Terry rating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T22:30:26Z)
• Right Answer, Wrong Score: Uncovering the Inconsistencies of LLM Evaluation in Multiple-Choice Question Answering [78.89231943329885]
  Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) is widely used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We show that multiple factors can significantly impact the reported performance of LLMs.<n>We analyze whether existing answer extraction methods are aligned with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T08:45:03Z)
• MicroVQA: A Multimodal Reasoning Benchmark for Microscopy-Based Scientific Research [57.61445960384384]
  MicroVQA consists of 1,042 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) curated by biology experts across diverse microscopy modalities.<n> Benchmarking on state-of-the-art MLLMs reveal a peak performance of 53%.<n>Expert analysis of chain-of-thought responses shows perception errors are the most frequent, followed by knowledge errors and then overgeneralization errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T17:33:10Z)
• It is Too Many Options: Pitfalls of Multiple-Choice Questions in Generative AI and Medical Education [0.7771252627207672]
  The performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks is frequently cited as proof of their medical capabilities.<n>We created a novel benchmark of free-response questions with paired MCQs (FreeMedQA)<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluated three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, and LLama-3-70B-instruct) and found an average absolute deterioration of 39.43% in performance on free-response questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T19:42:04Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• Fact or Guesswork? Evaluating Large Language Models' Medical Knowledge with Structured One-Hop Judgments [108.55277188617035]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in various downstream task domains, but their abilities to directly recall and apply factual medical knowledge remains under-explored.<n>We introduce the Medical Knowledge Judgment dataset (MKJ), a dataset derived from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), a comprehensive repository of standardized vocabularies and knowledge graphs.<n>Through a binary classification framework, MKJ evaluates LLMs' grasp of fundamental medical facts by having them assess the validity of concise, one-hop statements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T05:27:51Z)
• A Benchmark for Long-Form Medical Question Answering [4.815957808858573]
  There is a lack of benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in long-form medical question answering (QA) Most existing medical QA evaluation benchmarks focus on automatic metrics and multiple-choice questions. In this work, we introduce a new publicly available benchmark featuring real-world consumer medical questions with long-form answer evaluations annotated by medical doctors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T22:54:38Z)
• Pattern Recognition or Medical Knowledge? The Problem with Multiple-Choice Questions in Medicine [3.471944921180245]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in the medical domain.<n>They are often evaluated using multiple-choice questions (MCQs) modeled on exams like the USMLE.<n>We created a fictional medical benchmark centered on an imaginary organ, the Glianorex, allowing us to separate memorized knowledge from reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T15:08:56Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models on CMExam -- A Comprehensive Chinese Medical Exam Dataset [31.047827145874844]
  We introduce CMExam, sourced from the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination. CMExam consists of 60K+ multiple-choice questions for standardized and objective evaluations, as well as solution explanations for model reasoning evaluation in an open-ended manner. For in-depth analyses of LLMs, we invited medical professionals to label five additional question-wise annotations, including disease groups, clinical departments, medical disciplines, areas of competency, and question difficulty levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T16:48:41Z)
• Large Language Models Leverage External Knowledge to Extend Clinical Insight Beyond Language Boundaries [48.48630043740588]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Med-PaLM have excelled in various medical question-answering tasks. We develop a novel in-context learning framework to enhance their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T12:31:26Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.