ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Medical LLMs: Fine-Tuning vs. Retrieval-Augmented Generation.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fine-Tuning, Retrieval-Augmented Generation, and Hybrid Large Language Models for Postoperative Decision Support: Comparative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Assessing the accuracy and educational value of ChatGPT-generated content for core topics in cardiology: a descriptive analysis at Selçuk University Cardiology Clinic.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Integrating Fine-Tuning and Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Healthcare AI Systems: A Scoping Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Performance and safety of a fine-tuned small language model for pediatric emergency triage: A benchmark study.PloS one · 2026Article
- A novel evaluation benchmark for medical LLMs illuminating safety and effectiveness in clinical domains.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are trained on huge datasets, which allow them to answer questions from various domains. However, their expertise is confined to the data that they were trained on. In order to specialize LLMs in niche domains like healthcare, various training methods can be employed. Two of these commonly known approaches are retrieval-augmented Generation and model fine-tuning. Five models-Llama-3.1-8B, Gemma-2-9B, Mistral-7B-Instruct, Qwen2.5-7B, and Phi-3.5-Mini-Instruct-were fine-tuned on healthcare data. These models were trained using three distinct approaches: retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) alone, fine-tuning (FT) alone, and a combination of both (FT+RAG) on the MedQuAD dataset, which covers a wide range of medical topics including disease symptoms, treatments, medications, and more. Our findings revealed that RAG and FT+RAG consistently outperformed FT alone across most models, particularly LLAMA and PHI. LLAMA and PHI excelled across multiple metrics, with LLAMA showing superior overall performance and PHI demonstrating strong RAG/FT+RAG capabilities. QWEN lagged behind in most metrics, while GEMMA and MISTRAL showed mixed results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.