Evaluates medical multiple-choice question answering capability of 4B-parameter LLMs, specifically comparing the impact of domain fine-tuning versus retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) on accuracy. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MedQA-USMLE, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Majority-vote accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill medqa-usmle-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Medqa Usmle Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-medqa-usmle-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: medqa-usmle-eval
description: Evaluates medical multiple-choice question answering capability of 4B-parameter LLMs, specifically comparing the impact of domain fine-tuning versus retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) on accuracy. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MedQA-USMLE, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Majority-vote accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2604.23801
bibtex_key: buskila2026domain
confidence: high
---
# medqa-usmle-eval
> Domain Fine-Tuning vs. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Medical Multiple-Choice Question Answering: A Controlled Comparison at the 4B-Parameter Scale — Avi-ad Avraam Buskila et al. (2026) (arXiv:2604.23801, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates medical multiple-choice question answering capability of 4B-parameter LLMs, specifically comparing the impact of domain fine-tuning versus retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) on accuracy.
## Datasets
- **MedQA-USMLE** — total 1273; splits: test (1273)
## Metrics
- `Majority-vote accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Proportion of correctly answered questions out of the total test set. Answers are generated across three decoding repetitions at temperature T=0.1, and the most frequent option is selected as the final prediction.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Medical multiple-choice questions with four options. For RAG setups, relevant medical textbook passages are injected as context.
**Output**: A single letter corresponding to the chosen option. The pipeline allows up to two retries if the initial output does not match the expected answer schema.
## Scoring recipe
```python
# predictions: list of majority-vote answers per question (length N)
# golds: list of correct option letters (length N)
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if p == g)
accuracy = correct / len(golds)
```
## Common pitfalls
- RAG does not improve performance and may slightly decrease accuracy for domain-tuned models; the effect is not statistically significant.
- Single-pass decoding is insufficient due to stochasticity; the protocol requires three repetitions at T=0.1 to compute majority-vote accuracy.
- Outputs must strictly match the answer schema; parse failures trigger automatic retries, which affects the effective success rate.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Majority-vote accuracy and Wilson 95% confidence intervals for the four setups appear in Table 2 and Figure 1. The domain-tuned backbone (MedGemma 4B) leads both with and without RAG, and the best non-domain setup (Gemma 3 4B + RAG) does not catch up to the worst domain setup (MedGemma 4B + RAG).
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{buskila2026domain,
title={Domain Fine-Tuning vs. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Medical Multiple-Choice Question Answering: A Controlled Comparison at the 4B-Parameter Scale},
author={Avi-ad Avraam Buskila et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2604.23801}
}
```
- arXiv: 2604.23801
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!