Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40190132›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025

Evaluating the effectiveness of biomedical fine-tuning for large language models on clinical tasks.

Felix J Dorfner, Amin Dada, Felix Busch, Marcus R Makowski, Tianyu Han, Daniel Truhn, Jens Kleesiek, Madhumita Sushil, Lisa C Adams, Keno K Bressem

Erratum issuedAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Felix J DorfnerCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin 10117, Germany.
Amin DadaInstitute for AI in Medicine (IKIM), University Hospital Essen (AöR), Essen 45131, Germany.
Felix BuschDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich 81675, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9770-8555
Marcus R MakowskiDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich 81675, Germany.
Tianyu HanDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen 52074, Germany.
Daniel TruhnDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Aachen, Aachen 52074, Germany.
Jens KleesiekInstitute for AI in Medicine (IKIM), University Hospital Essen (AöR), Essen 45131, Germany.
Madhumita SushilBakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7884-0526
Lisa C AdamsDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich 81675, Germany.
Keno K BressemDepartment of Radiology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich 81675, Germany.

Funding

Excellence Strategy of the Federal GovernmentFederal Ministry of Education and ResearchFree State of BavariaInstitute for Advanced StudyLänderTechnical University of MunichTechnical University of Munich - Institute for Advanced Study
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLarge 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 aims to critically evaluate the performance of biomedically fine-tuned LLMs against their general-purpose counterparts across a range of clinical tasks. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe evaluated the performance of biomedically fine-tuned LLMs against their general-purpose counterparts on clinical case challenges from NEJM and JAMA, and on multiple clinical tasks, such as information extraction, document summarization and clinical coding. We used a diverse set of benchmarks specifically chosen to be outside the likely fine-tuning datasets of biomedical models, ensuring a fair assessment of generalization capabilities.

resultsBiomedical LLMs generally underperformed compared to general-purpose models, especially on tasks not focused on probing medical knowledge. While on the case challenges, larger biomedical and general-purpose models showed similar performance (eg, OpenBioLLM-70B: 66.4% vs Llama-3-70B-Instruct: 65% on JAMA), smaller biomedical models showed more pronounced underperformance (OpenBioLLM-8B: 30% vs Llama-3-8B-Instruct: 64.3% on NEJM). Similar trends appeared across CLUE benchmarks, with general-purpose models often achieving higher scores in text generation, question answering, and coding. Notably, biomedical LLMs also showed a higher tendency to hallucinate. DISCUSSION: Our findings challenge the assumption that biomedical fine-tuning inherently improves LLM performance, as general-purpose models consistently performed better on unseen medical tasks. Retrieval-augmented generation may offer a more effective strategy for clinical adaptation.

conclusionFine-tuning LLMs on biomedical data may not yield the anticipated benefits. Alternative approaches, such as retrieval augmentation, should be further explored for effective and reliable clinical integration of LLMs.

Indexed as

Data MiningInformation Storage and RetrievalNatural Language ProcessingHumansLarge Language Modelsbenchmarkingbiomedical fine-tuningdomain-specific adaptationhallucination in AI modelslarge language models (LLMs)

Identifiers

PMID40190132
PMCPMC12089759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.