Evaluates complex reasoning and domain-specific knowledge integration in healthcare by testing models on multi-choice questions derived from real Spanish medical specialization exams. It probes the ability to handle long, context-rich questions requiring cross-domain inference and precise medical knowledge. Use when the user wants to benchmark on HEAD-QA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill head-qa-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Head Qa Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-head-qa-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: head-qa-eval
description: Evaluates complex reasoning and domain-specific knowledge integration in healthcare by testing models on multi-choice questions derived from real Spanish medical specialization exams. It probes the ability to handle long, context-rich questions requiring cross-domain inference and precise medical knowledge. Use when the user wants to benchmark on HEAD-QA, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 1906.04701
bibtex_key: vilares2019headqa
confidence: high
---
# head-qa-eval
> HEAD-QA: A Healthcare Dataset for Complex Reasoning — Vilares et al. (2019) (arXiv:1906.04701, 2019)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates complex reasoning and domain-specific knowledge integration in healthcare by testing models on multi-choice questions derived from real Spanish medical specialization exams. It probes the ability to handle long, context-rich questions requiring cross-domain inference and precise medical knowledge.
## Datasets
- **HEAD-QA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Percentage of correctly answered questions out of the total number of questions.
- `POINTS` — range: other
- A scoring system from the official exams where a correct answer adds 3 points and an incorrect answer subtracts 1 point.
## Input / output format
**Input**: A multi-choice question with multiple answer options, derived from real healthcare specialization exams.
**Output**: A single selected answer option from the provided choices.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, golds):
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if p == g)
wrong = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if p != g)
total = len(golds)
accuracy = correct / total
points = (3 * correct) - (1 * wrong)
return {'accuracy': accuracy, 'POINTS': points}
```
## Common pitfalls
- The POINTS metric penalizes incorrect answers (-1 point), so models that guess randomly will score negatively, unlike standard accuracy.
- Performance heavily depends on question length and domain; medicine questions (MIR) are consistently the hardest due to longer text, while pharmacology (FIR) and biology (BIR) are easier.
- Cross-lingual information retrieval models sometimes outperform in-domain Spanish models, indicating translation quality or retrieval robustness plays a major role.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Metrics We use accuracy and a POINTS metric (used in the official exams): a right answer counts 3 points and a wrong one subtracts 1 point.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{vilares2019headqa,
title={HEAD-QA: A Healthcare Dataset for Complex Reasoning},
author={Vilares et al. (2019)},
year={2019},
note={arXiv:1906.04701}
}
```
- arXiv: 1906.04701

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!