# KorMedMCQA: Multi-Choice Question Answering Benchmark for Korean Healthcare Professional Licensing Examinations

Source: [KorMedMCQA: Multi-Choice Question Answering Benchmark for Korean Healthcare Professional Licensing Examinations](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/68fa76151e209131cea6b53b>)

Collection index: [llms.txt](<https://www.sota2.com/research/llms.txt>)

Data updated: 2025-10-26T03:47:33.330Z

Authors: Sunjun Kweon, Byungjin Choi, Gyouk Chu, Junyeong Song, Daeun Hyeon, Sujin Gan, Jueon Kim, Minkyu Kim, Rae Woong Park, Edward Choi

Published: 2024-03-03T10:31:49.000Z

## Abstract

We present KorMedMCQA, the first Korean Medical Multiple-Choice Question Answering benchmark, derived from professional healthcare licensing examinations conducted in Korea between 2012 and 2024. The dataset contains 7,469 questions from examinations for doctor, nurse, pharmacist, and dentist, covering a wide range of medical disciplines. We evaluate the performance of 59 large language models, spanning proprietary and open-source models, multilingual and Korean-specialized models, and those fine-tuned for clinical applications. Our results show that applying Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning can enhance the model performance by up to 4.5% compared to direct answering approaches. We also investigate whether MedQA, one of the most widely used medical benchmarks derived from the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination, can serve as a reliable proxy for evaluating model performance in other regions-in this case, Korea. Our correlation analysis between model scores on KorMedMCQA and MedQA reveals that these two benchmarks align no better than benchmarks from entirely different domains (e.g., MedQA and MMLU-Pro). This finding underscores the substantial linguistic and clinical differences between Korean and U.S. medical contexts, reinforcing the need for region-specific medical QA benchmarks. To support ongoing research in Korean healthcare AI, we publicly release the KorMedMCQA via Huggingface.

## Recorded benchmark results

A research result applies to its stated dataset, split, metric and evaluation configuration. Compare like-for-like settings, preserve the metric's unit and direction, and distinguish paper-reported results from independent reproduction. The best result recorded here is not a claim of exhaustive, current global coverage.

## Original sources and implementation

[Original paper](<https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.01469>)

[PDF](<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.01469.pdf>)