Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37123444›Full record

ArticlePatterns (New York, N.Y.)2023

Fine-tuning large neural language models for biomedical natural language processing.

Robert Tinn, Hao Cheng, Yu Gu, Naoto Usuyama, Xiaodong Liu, Tristan Naumann, Jianfeng Gao, Hoifung Poon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Scoring Physician Risk Communication in Prostate Cancer Using Large Language Models.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. An efficient strategy for fine-tuning large language models.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Scoring Physician Risk Communication in Prostate Cancer Using Large Language Models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Robert TinnMicrosoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA.
Hao ChengMicrosoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA.
Yu GuMicrosoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA.
Naoto UsuyamaMicrosoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA.
Xiaodong LiuMicrosoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA.
Tristan NaumannMicrosoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA.
Jianfeng GaoMicrosoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA.
Hoifung PoonMicrosoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large neural language models have transformed modern natural language processing (NLP) applications. However, fine-tuning such models for specific tasks remains challenging as model size increases, especially with small labeled datasets, which are common in biomedical NLP. We conduct a systematic study on fine-tuning stability in biomedical NLP. We show that fine-tuning performance may be sensitive to pretraining settings and conduct an exploration of techniques for addressing fine-tuning instability. We show that these techniques can substantially improve fine-tuning performance for low-resource biomedical NLP applications. Specifically, freezing lower layers is helpful for standard BERT-

Indexed as

biomedical language and understanding benchmarkBLURBL01.224.050.375.580natural language processing

Identifiers

PMID37123444
PMCPMC10140607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.