Biomedical Large Languages Models Seem not to be Superior to Generalist Models on Unseen Medical Data
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2024
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866910576171548672 |
|---|---|
| author | Dorfner, Felix J. Dada, Amin Busch, Felix Makowski, Marcus R. Han, Tianyu Truhn, Daniel Kleesiek, Jens Sushil, Madhumita Lammert, Jacqueline Adams, Lisa C. Bressem, Keno K. |
| author_facet | Dorfner, Felix J. Dada, Amin Busch, Felix Makowski, Marcus R. Han, Tianyu Truhn, Daniel Kleesiek, Jens Sushil, Madhumita Lammert, Jacqueline Adams, Lisa C. Bressem, Keno K. |
| contents | Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in biomedical applications, leading to efforts to fine-tune them on domain-specific data. However, the effectiveness of this approach remains unclear. This study evaluates the performance of biomedically fine-tuned LLMs against their general-purpose counterparts on a variety of clinical tasks. We evaluated their performance on clinical case challenges from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and on several clinical tasks (e.g., information extraction, document summarization, and clinical coding). Using benchmarks specifically chosen to be likely outside the fine-tuning datasets of biomedical models, we found that biomedical LLMs mostly perform inferior to their general-purpose counterparts, especially on tasks not focused on medical knowledge. While larger models showed similar performance on case tasks (e.g., OpenBioLLM-70B: 66.4% vs. Llama-3-70B-Instruct: 65% on JAMA cases), smaller biomedical models showed more pronounced underperformance (e.g., OpenBioLLM-8B: 30% vs. Llama-3-8B-Instruct: 64.3% on NEJM cases). Similar trends were observed across the CLUE (Clinical Language Understanding Evaluation) benchmark tasks, with general-purpose models often performing better on text generation, question answering, and coding tasks. Our results suggest that fine-tuning LLMs to biomedical data may not provide the expected benefits and may potentially lead to reduced performance, challenging prevailing assumptions about domain-specific adaptation of LLMs and highlighting the need for more rigorous evaluation frameworks in healthcare AI. Alternative approaches, such as retrieval-augmented generation, may be more effective in enhancing the biomedical capabilities of LLMs without compromising their general knowledge. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2408_13833 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Biomedical Large Languages Models Seem not to be Superior to Generalist Models on Unseen Medical Data Dorfner, Felix J. Dada, Amin Busch, Felix Makowski, Marcus R. Han, Tianyu Truhn, Daniel Kleesiek, Jens Sushil, Madhumita Lammert, Jacqueline Adams, Lisa C. Bressem, Keno K. Computation and Language Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in biomedical applications, leading to efforts to fine-tune them on domain-specific data. However, the effectiveness of this approach remains unclear. This study evaluates the performance of biomedically fine-tuned LLMs against their general-purpose counterparts on a variety of clinical tasks. We evaluated their performance on clinical case challenges from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and on several clinical tasks (e.g., information extraction, document summarization, and clinical coding). Using benchmarks specifically chosen to be likely outside the fine-tuning datasets of biomedical models, we found that biomedical LLMs mostly perform inferior to their general-purpose counterparts, especially on tasks not focused on medical knowledge. While larger models showed similar performance on case tasks (e.g., OpenBioLLM-70B: 66.4% vs. Llama-3-70B-Instruct: 65% on JAMA cases), smaller biomedical models showed more pronounced underperformance (e.g., OpenBioLLM-8B: 30% vs. Llama-3-8B-Instruct: 64.3% on NEJM cases). Similar trends were observed across the CLUE (Clinical Language Understanding Evaluation) benchmark tasks, with general-purpose models often performing better on text generation, question answering, and coding tasks. Our results suggest that fine-tuning LLMs to biomedical data may not provide the expected benefits and may potentially lead to reduced performance, challenging prevailing assumptions about domain-specific adaptation of LLMs and highlighting the need for more rigorous evaluation frameworks in healthcare AI. Alternative approaches, such as retrieval-augmented generation, may be more effective in enhancing the biomedical capabilities of LLMs without compromising their general knowledge. |
| title | Biomedical Large Languages Models Seem not to be Superior to Generalist Models on Unseen Medical Data |
| topic | Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13833 |