Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Structured ClinicalReport Generation Using GRPO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The generation of structured medical reports using large language models (LLMs) presents unique challenges, particularly in maintaining clinical relevance and adhering to strict formatting requirements. In this work, we investigate the effectiveness of fine-tuning LLMs for structured report generation using DeepSeek R1 models. We conduct experiments with two model variants: DeepSeek R1 8B and DeepSeek R1 14B. For both models, we apply Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-IV) dataset, leveraging Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) for parameter-efficient fine-tuning. Our results show that the GRPO fine-tuned DeepSeek-R1 8B and 14B models outperformed all baseline models, including the larger 32B DeepSeek-R1 model, demonstrating the effectiveness of parameter-efficient tuning. These findings underscore the potential of reinforcement learning-based fine-tuning of LLMs for generating structured reports in the medical domain.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".