Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluation of ChatGPT Family of Models for Biomedical Reasoning and Classification

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2304.02496 v1 pith:2UKAQRWB submitted 2023-04-05 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords biomedicalmodelschatgptllmstasksclassificationclinicalfamily
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive ability in biomedical question-answering, but have not been adequately investigated for more specific biomedical applications. This study investigates the performance of LLMs such as the ChatGPT family of models (GPT-3.5s, GPT-4) in biomedical tasks beyond question-answering. Because no patient data can be passed to the OpenAI API public interface, we evaluated model performance with over 10000 samples as proxies for two fundamental tasks in the clinical domain - classification and reasoning. The first task is classifying whether statements of clinical and policy recommendations in scientific literature constitute health advice. The second task is causal relation detection from the biomedical literature. We compared LLMs with simpler models, such as bag-of-words (BoW) with logistic regression, and fine-tuned BioBERT models. Despite the excitement around viral ChatGPT, we found that fine-tuning for two fundamental NLP tasks remained the best strategy. The simple BoW model performed on par with the most complex LLM prompting. Prompt engineering required significant investment.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Prompt Engineering Guidelines for Using Large Language Models in Requirements Engineering

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A literature review and three expert interviews yield a proposed mapping of prompt engineering guideline themes onto five requirements engineering activities, with no empirical validation of the mapping.

Pith tools