ArticleFrontiers in digital health2026
From memorization to generalization: fine-tuning large language models for biomedical term-to-identifier normalization.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Note-Level Phenotyping of Multiple-Sclerosis Notes by a Large Language Model Achieves near Human-Level Agreement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Reframing ontology fact acquisition during large language model fine-tuning as a time-to-event process.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Biomedical data integration requires term-to-identifier normalization, the process of linking natural-language biomedical terms to standardized ontology codes so that extracted concepts become computable and interoperable. Although large language models perform well on clinical text summarization and concept extraction, they remain markedly less accurate at mapping ontology terms to their corresponding identifiers. Methods: We examined the roles of memorization and generalization in term-to-code mapping across the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO), the Gene Ontology (GO), and the HGNC gene naming system, including mappings between gene names, lexicalized gene symbols, and arbitrary gene identifiers. Performance was assessed across multiple base models and after task-specific fine-tuning. Results: Accuracy scaled with model size, with GPT-4o outperforming Llama 3.1 70B and Llama 3.1 8B. Fine-tuning improved forward mappings from term to identifier, with larger gains for GO than for HPO and minimal improvement for gene name-to-HGNC identifier mappings. Generalization to withheld mappings occurred primarily for HGNC gene name-to-gene symbol tasks, whereas fine-tuning on HPO and GO identifiers produced little generalization. Embedding analyses revealed strong semantic alignment between gene names and HGNC gene symbols but no comparable alignment between concept names and identifiers in GO, HPO, or HGNC. Conclusions: These results suggest that fine-tuning success depends on two interacting factors: popularity and lexicalization. Popularity, a proxy for pretraining exposure to term-identifier pairs, predicted baseline accuracy and the magnitude of memorization gains during fine-tuning, whereas long-tail identifiers remained difficult to consolidate. Lexicalization, the extent to which a symbol functions as a meaningful token in embedding space, enabled generalization and explains why generalization emerged for HGNC gene symbols but not for the arbitrary identifiers used in GO and HPO. Together, these findings provide a predictive framework for identifying when fine-tuning can improve factual term normalization, when gains primarily reflect memorization, and when normalization is likely to fail.
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.