Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40206998›Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025

Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Specialized Use Cases.

D M Anisuzzaman, Jeffrey G Malins, Paul A Friedman, Zachi I Attia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Domain-adapted language model using reinforcement learning for various dementias.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors.

D M AnisuzzamanDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Jeffrey G MalinsDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Paul A FriedmanDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Zachi I AttiaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are a type of artificial intelligence, which operate by predicting and assembling sequences of words that are statistically likely to follow from a given text input. With this basic ability, LLMs are able to answer complex questions and follow extremely complex instructions. Products created using LLMs such as ChatGPT by OpenAI and Claude by Anthropic have created a huge amount of traction and user engagements and revolutionized the way we interact with technology, bringing a new dimension to human-computer interaction. Fine-tuning is a process in which a pretrained model, such as an LLM, is further trained on a custom data set to adapt it for specialized tasks or domains. In this review, we outline some of the major methodologic approaches and techniques that can be used to fine-tune LLMs for specialized use cases and enumerate the general steps required for carrying out LLM fine-tuning. We then illustrate a few of these methodologic approaches by describing several specific use cases of fine-tuning LLMs across medical subspecialties. Finally, we close with a consideration of some of the benefits and limitations associated with fine-tuning LLMs for specialized use cases, with an emphasis on specific concerns in the field of medicine.

Identifiers

PMID40206998
PMCPMC11976015

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.