Performance of Large Language Models in the Non-English Context: Qualitative Study of Models Trained on Different Languages in Chinese Medical Examinations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Research on large language models (LLMs) in the medical field has predominantly focused on models trained with English-language corpora, evaluating their performance within English-speaking contexts. The performances of models trained with non-English language corpora and their performance in non-English contexts remain underexplored. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the performances of LLMs trained on different languages corpora by using the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination (CNMLE) as a benchmark and constructed analogous questions. Methods: Under different prompt settings, we sequentially posed questions to 7 LLMs: 2 primarily trained on English-language corpora and 5 primarily on Chinese-language corpora. The models' responses were compared against standard answers to calculate the accuracy rate of each model. Further subgroup analyses were conducted by categorizing the questions based on various criteria. We also collected error sets to explore patterns of mistakes across different models. Results: Under the zero-shot setting, 6 out of 7 models exceeded the passing level, with the highest accuracy rate achieved by the Chinese LLM Baichuan (86.67%), followed by ChatGPT (83.83%). In the constructed questions, all 7 models exceeded the passing threshold, with Baichuan maintaining the highest accuracy rate (87.00%). In few-shot learning, all models exceeded the passing threshold. Baichuan, ChatGLM, and ChatGPT retained the highest accuracy. While Llama showed marked improvement over previous tests, the relative performance rankings of other models stayed similar to previous results. In subgroup analyses, English models demonstrated comparable or superior performance to Chinese models on questions related to ethics and policy. All models except Llama generally had higher accuracy rates for simple questions than for complex ones. The error set of ChatGPT was similar to those of other Chinese models. Multimodel cross-verification outperformed single model, particularly improving accuracy rate on simple questions. The implementation of dual-model and tri-model verification achieved accuracy rates of 94.17% and 96.33% respectively. Conclusions: At the current level, LLMs trained primarily on English corpora and those trained mainly on Chinese corpora perform similarly well in CNMLE, with Chinese models still outperforming. The performance difference between ChatGPT and other Chinese LLMs are not solely due to communication barriers but are more likely influenced by disparities in the training data. By using a method of cross-verification with multiple LLMs, excellent performance can be achieved in medical examinations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».