Why the study?
While large language models perform well on English medical exams, their effectiveness in non-English, high-stakes medical examinations is less understood.
Do Large Language Models perform comparably to human examinees on the Spanish-language Chilean Anesthesiology Certification Exam?
Do Large Language Models perform comparably to human examinees on the Spanish-language Chilean Anesthesiology Certification Exam?
Large Language Models demonstrate strong factual recall on a Spanish-language anesthesiology board exam, with GPT-o1 achieving 88.7% accuracy, though limitations in complex reasoning remain.
May assist anesthesiology trainees with certification exams; leaves open questions on complex reasoning and clinical deployment.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on English-language medical exams, but their effectiveness in non-English, high-stakes environments is less understood. This study benchmarks nine LLMs against human examinees on the Chilean Anesthesiology Certification Exam (CONACEM), a Spanish-language board examination. A curated set of 63 multiple-choice questions was used, categorized by Bloom’s taxonomy into four cognitive levels. Model responses were assessed using Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory, complemented by additional error analysis, categorizing errors as reasoning-based, knowledge-based, or comprehension-related. Closed-source models surpassed open-source models, with GPT-o1 achieving the highest accuracy (88.7%). Deepseek-R1 is a strong performer among open-source options. Item difficulty significantly predicted the model accuracy, while discrimination did not. Most errors occurred in application and understanding tasks and were linked to flawed reasoning or knowledge misapplication. These results underscore LLMs’ potential for factual recall in Spanish medical exams but also their limitations in complex reasoning. Incorporating cognitive classification and error taxonomy provides deeper insights into model behavior and supports their cautious use as educational aids in clinical settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Altermatt et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: