ArticleNature communications2026
Memorization in large language models in medicine prevalence characteristics and implications.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Recent advances in defending the privacy attacks of large language models for healthcare applications: a concise review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in medicine, with many studies adapting them through continued pretraining or fine-tuning on medical data. However, a key question remains: to what extent do LLMs memorize medical training data-that is, recall or regenerate content seen during continued pretraining or fine-tuning. In this work, we investigate memorization of LLMs in medicine, assessing its prevalence (frequency), characteristics (what is memorized), volume (how much), and potential downstream impacts. We systematically analyze common adaptation scenarios: (1) continued pretraining on medical corpora, (2) fine-tuning on standard medical benchmarks, and (3) fine-tuning on real-world clinical data, including over 13,000 unique inpatient records from Yale New Haven Health System. The results demonstrate that memorization is prevalent and significantly higher than that in the general domain. Memorization has distinct characteristics during continued pretraining and fine-tuning, and it is persistent: up to 87% of content memorized during continued pretraining remains after fine-tuning. Memorization can be categorized into three types: beneficial (e.g., accurate recall of clinical guidelines), uninformative (e.g., templated language), and harmful (e.g., sensitive clinical content). We offer practical recommendations to facilitate beneficial memorization, minimize uninformative memorization, and mitigate harmful memorization to protect patient privacy and improve medical utility.
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.