Studying The Effectiveness Of Large Language Models In Benchmark Biomedical Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capability to solve a wide range of tasks. However, despite their success across various tasks, no prior work has investigated their capability in the biomedical domain yet. To this end, this thesis aims to evaluate the performance of LLMs on benchmark biomedical tasks. For this purpose, a comprehensive evaluation of 4 popular LLMs in 6 diverse biomedical tasks across 26 datasets has been conducted. Interestingly, this evaluation shows that in biomedical datasets that have smaller training sets, zero-shot LLMs even outperform the current state-of-the-art models when they were fine-tuned only on the training set of these datasets. This suggests that pretraining on large text corpora makes LLMs quite specialized even in the biomedical domain. The findings also shows that not a single LLM can outperform other LLMs in all tasks, with the performance of different LLMs may vary depending on the task. While their performance is still quite poor in comparison to the biomedical models that were fine-tuned on large training sets, this study demonstrates that LLMs have the potential to be a valuable tool for various biomedical tasks that lack large annotated data.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".