Recent Advances in Large Language Models for Healthcare
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in the field of large language models (LLMs) underline their high potential for applications in a variety of sectors. Their use in healthcare, in particular, holds out promising prospects for improving medical practices. As we highlight in this paper, LLMs have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in language understanding and generation that could indeed be put to good use in the medical field. We also present the main architectures of these models, such as GPT, Bloom, or LLaMA, composed of billions of parameters. We then examine recent trends in the medical datasets used to train these models. We classify them according to different criteria, such as size, source, or subject (patient records, scientific articles, etc.). We mention that LLMs could help improve patient care, accelerate medical research, and optimize the efficiency of healthcare systems such as assisted diagnosis. We also highlight several technical and ethical issues that need to be resolved before LLMs can be used extensively in the medical field. Consequently, we propose a discussion of the capabilities offered by new generations of linguistic models and their limitations when deployed in a domain such as healthcare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it