To Adapt or not to Adapt, Rethinking the Value of Medical Knowledge-Aware Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06854v1
• Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2026 09:17:55 GMT
• Title: To Adapt or not to Adapt, Rethinking the Value of Medical Knowledge-Aware Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Recent studies have shown that domain-adapted large language models (LLMs) do not consistently outperform general-purpose counterparts on standard medical benchmarks.<n>We compare general and clinical LLMs on a diverse set of multiple choice clinical question answering tasks in English and Spanish.
• Score: 0.7939766248249879
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that domain-adapted large language models (LLMs) do not consistently outperform general-purpose counterparts on standard medical benchmarks, raising questions about the need for specialized clinical adaptation. METHODS: We systematically compare general and clinical LLMs on a diverse set of multiple choice clinical question answering tasks in English and Spanish. We introduce a perturbation based evaluation benchmark that probes model robustness, instruction following, and sensitivity to adversarial variations. Our evaluation includes, one-step and two-step question transformations, multi prompt testing and instruction guided assessment. We analyze a range of state-of-the-art clinical models and their general-purpose counterparts, focusing on Llama 3.1-based models. Additionally, we introduce Marmoka, a family of lightweight 8B-parameter clinical LLMs for English and Spanish, developed via continual domain-adaptive pretraining on medical corpora and instructions. RESULTS: The experiments show that clinical LLMs do not consistently outperform their general purpose counterparts on English clinical tasks, even under the proposed perturbation based benchmark. However, for the Spanish subsets the proposed Marmoka models obtain better results compared to Llama. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that, under current short-form MCQA benchmarks, clinical LLMs offer only marginal and unstable improvements over general-purpose models in English, suggesting that existing evaluation frameworks may be insufficient to capture genuine medical expertise. We further find that both general and clinical models exhibit substantial limitations in instruction following and strict output formatting. Finally, we demonstrate that robust medical LLMs can be successfully developed for low-resource languages such as Spanish, as evidenced by the Marmoka models.

Related papers

• Artificial Intolerance: Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation Skews Large Language Model Decision-Making [13.79732306725696]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as clinical decision support and medical documentation.<n>We investigate whether frontier LLMs inherit and propagate this human bias when processing clinical text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T02:28:25Z)
• Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models in Healthcare [1.9704270315085601]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming artificial intelligence applications in healthcare.<n>Their deployment in high-stakes clinical environments raises critical concerns regarding accuracy, reliability, and patient safety.<n>This study addresses the need for a standardized comparative evaluation of LLMs in medical settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-11T18:47:54Z)
• MedArena: Comparing LLMs for Medicine-in-the-Wild Clinician Preferences [50.71326426975699]
  We present MedArena, an interactive evaluation platform for medical large language models (LLMs)<n>Given a clinician-provided query, MedArena presents responses from two randomly selected models and asks the user to select the preferred response.<n>Out of 1571 preferences collected across 12 LLMs up to November 1, 2025, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-4o were the top three models by Bradley-Terry rating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T22:30:26Z)
• Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.91760712805404]
  We introduce VivaBench, a benchmark for evaluating sequential clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our dataset consists of 1762 physician-curated clinical vignettes structured as interactive scenarios that simulate a (oral) examination in medical training.<n>Our analysis identified several failure modes that mirror common cognitive errors in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T16:24:35Z)
• MedGUIDE: Benchmarking Clinical Decision-Making in Large Language Models [10.46932473088646]
  We introduce MedGUIDE, a new benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on their ability to make guideline-consistent clinical decisions.<n> MedGUIDE is constructed from 55 curated NCCN decision trees across 17 cancer types.<n>We apply a two-stage quality selection process, combining expert-labeled reward models and LLM-as-a-judge ensembles across ten clinical and linguistic criteria, to select 7,747 high-quality samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T18:21:52Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• LlaMADRS: Prompting Large Language Models for Interview-Based Depression Assessment [75.44934940580112]
  This study introduces LlaMADRS, a novel framework leveraging open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate depression severity assessment.<n>We employ a zero-shot prompting strategy with carefully designed cues to guide the model in interpreting and scoring transcribed clinical interviews.<n>Our approach, tested on 236 real-world interviews, demonstrates strong correlations with clinician assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:49:04Z)
• CliMedBench: A Large-Scale Chinese Benchmark for Evaluating Medical Large Language Models in Clinical Scenarios [50.032101237019205]
  CliMedBench is a comprehensive benchmark with 14 expert-guided core clinical scenarios. The reliability of this benchmark has been confirmed in several ways.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:15:36Z)
• MEDIC: Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating LLMs in Clinical Applications [2.838746648891565]
  We introduce MEDIC, a framework assessing Large Language Models (LLMs) across five critical dimensions of clinical competence. We apply MEDIC to evaluate LLMs on medical question-answering, safety, summarization, note generation, and other tasks. Results show performance disparities across model sizes, baseline vs medically finetuned models, and have implications on model selection for applications requiring specific model strengths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T14:44:51Z)
• SemioLLM: Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Reasoning from Unstructured Clinical Narratives in Epilepsy [45.2233252981348]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to encode clinical knowledge.<n>We present SemioLLM, an evaluation framework that benchmarks 6 state-of-the-art models.<n>We show that most LLMs are able to accurately and confidently generate probabilistic predictions of seizure onset zones in the brain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T11:02:12Z)
• Pattern Recognition or Medical Knowledge? The Problem with Multiple-Choice Questions in Medicine [3.471944921180245]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate significant potential in the medical domain.<n>They are often evaluated using multiple-choice questions (MCQs) modeled on exams like the USMLE.<n>We created a fictional medical benchmark centered on an imaginary organ, the Glianorex, allowing us to separate memorized knowledge from reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T15:08:56Z)
• A Spectrum Evaluation Benchmark for Medical Multi-Modal Large Language Models [57.88111980149541]
  We introduce Asclepius, a novel Med-MLLM benchmark that assesses Med-MLLMs in terms of distinct medical specialties and different diagnostic capacities.<n>Grounded in 3 proposed core principles, Asclepius ensures a comprehensive evaluation by encompassing 15 medical specialties.<n>We also provide an in-depth analysis of 6 Med-MLLMs and compare them with 3 human specialists.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T08:04:23Z)
• AI Hospital: Benchmarking Large Language Models in a Multi-agent Medical Interaction Simulator [69.51568871044454]
  We introduce textbfAI Hospital, a framework simulating dynamic medical interactions between emphDoctor as player and NPCs. This setup allows for realistic assessments of LLMs in clinical scenarios. We develop the Multi-View Medical Evaluation benchmark, utilizing high-quality Chinese medical records and NPCs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T06:46:48Z)
• Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge [21.630872464930587]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation. We propose a framework for human evaluation of model answers along multiple axes including factuality, precision, possible harm, and bias. We show that comprehension, recall of knowledge, and medical reasoning improve with model scale and instruction prompt tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-26T14:28:24Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.