Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Aligning Large Language Models with Healthcare Stakeholders: A Pathway to Trustworthy AI Integration

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Healthcare stakeholders must participate across the entire LLM lifecycle—data curation, training, and inference—for large language models to follow human values safely in clinical settings.

desk verdict Useful stakeholder map of healthcare LLM alignment, but the value-alignment claim outruns the cited evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02848 v1 pith:I6AKGKTL submitted 2025-05-02 cs.CY cs.AIcs.CL

Kexin Ding , Mu Zhou , Akshay Chaudhari , Shaoting Zhang , Dimitris N. Metaxas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.CL
keywords largelanguagemodelshealthcarealignmenthuman-in-the-loopRLHFchain-of-thoughtpromptingtrustworthyAIclinicalworkflowmedicaleducation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review argues that large language models become trustworthy in healthcare only through deliberate alignment between model outputs and the knowledge, demands, and values of healthcare stakeholders: clinicians, patients, educators, and payers. Its central claim is that human participation at every stage of the LLM lifecycle, from curation of training data through instruction tuning and reinforcement learning from human feedback to prompt-based reasoning at inference, is the crucial foundation for safe adoption. The paper surveys techniques and application scenarios for this alignment, and contends that combining healthcare knowledge integration, task understanding, and human guidance lets LLMs better follow human values. A sympathetic reader would take away that investment in human-in-the-loop methods is not optional but load-bearing for trustworthy clinical AI.

What carries the argument

The organizing mechanism is the human-in-the-loop alignment pipeline spanning the LLM lifecycle. In pretraining, curated healthcare corpora and expert verification ground the model in clinical concepts; in intermediate training, instruction tuning and parameter-efficient adapters such as LoRA inject domain knowledge at low cost; in post-training, RLHF trains a reward model from human preferences; and at inference, chain-of-thought and self-consistency prompting inject human-designed reasoning paths into model outputs. The review treats this pipeline as the load-bearing object: each of the four stages is presented as a place where stakeholder knowledge enters the model, and the cited applications are read as evidence that this staged injection reduces hallucination and improves alignment.

What would settle it

A systematic re-analysis of the cited clinical LLM results that adjusts for training-data contamination and compares the same base model with and without stakeholder alignment on prospective clinical tasks would settle the claim; if aligned models show no consistent advantage on such tasks, the review's central premise collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that alignment with healthcare stakeholders—not raw model scale or general capability—determines whether LLM deployment in healthcare is effective, safe, and responsible. It organizes alignment across four stakeholder groups and four development stages, and asserts that techniques such as domain-specific pretraining, parameter-efficient finetuning and instruction tuning, RLHF, and chain-of-thought prompting each contribute to making model behavior match human expectations. The demonstration takes the form of a survey: dozens of cited systems and evaluations are assembled to show that when these alignment measures are present, LLMs can assist clinical reasoning, patient education, exam preparation, and insurance administration; when absent, hallucinations and mismatches with clinical knowledge appear.

Load-bearing premise

The review's conclusion depends on the cited empirical studies genuinely showing that alignment techniques improve healthcare LLM performance, and on those benchmark gains carrying over to real clinical workflows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, healthcare organizations should budget for sustained human oversight in data curation and feedback rather than treating LLM adoption as a plug-in inference tool.
  • Alignment gains attributed to prompting, such as the MedQA improvement reported for Med-PaLM 2, would be expected to shrink when no human-designed reasoning chain is available, making prompt design a clinical skill in itself.
  • Regulatory approaches modeled on Software as a Medical Device, with continuous monitoring over the product lifecycle, become a natural complement to technical alignment rather than an external hurdle.
  • Payer and EHR use cases would increasingly rely on models trained on de-identified clinical text and synthetic data, shifting the bottleneck from raw data volume to verification of generated clinical content.
  • The survey predicts that AI-generated feedback will scale alignment, but only if combined with human feedback, implying that hybrid feedback pipelines will be the near-term norm.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that its four stakeholder groups have unequal power in shaping alignment: payer-oriented alignment is driven by administrative efficiency, whereas patient-oriented alignment is driven by comprehension, so the same technical method may serve different values depending on who supplies the feedback.
  • A testable extension is to stratify clinical benchmarks by reasoning demand: if chain-of-thought alignment works as described, gains over standard prompting should concentrate on multi-step tasks such as eligibility determination and differential diagnosis, and nearly vanish on single-step retrieval questions.
  • Another extension the paper does not pursue is comparing models aligned with clinician feedback versus patient feedback on the same task, which would reveal whose values the alignment actually encodes.
  • If AI-generated feedback is as scalable as the outlook suggests, a direct comparison of preference models trained on human versus AI feedback for clinical safety cases would show whether AI feedback introduces a ceiling that human feedback does not.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a narrative review of approaches to aligning large language models (LLMs) with healthcare stakeholders, covering clinical workflow, patient care, medical education, and healthcare payers. The paper argues that alignment is achieved through healthcare knowledge integration, task understanding, and human guidance across the LLM lifecycle (pretraining, intermediate training, post-training, and inference), and that this alignment is a foundation for trustworthy healthcare AI. It surveys representative models (e.g., GatorTron, MEDITRON-70B, Med-PaLM 2), techniques (instruction tuning, RLHF, chain-of-thought prompting, PEFT), and applications (clinical documentation, trial matching, patient education, insurance pre-authorization), and closes with outlooks on linguistic generalizability, synthetic data, hallucination mitigation, and regulation.

Significance. If the conceptual framework were carefully drawn, the review would offer a useful organizing map of an active research area: its stakeholder-based taxonomy (clinicians, patients, educators, payers) is helpful, and the coverage of recent models and techniques is broad and current. The paper also earns credit for explicitly discussing regulation, hallucination risks, and synthetic data as alignment-relevant topics. However, the central claim—that the cited techniques make LLMs 'follow human values' and thereby produce trustworthy healthcare AI—rests on an unstated evidential step: task-competence metrics (exam pass rates, readmission prediction accuracy, preference-match rates) are treated as measures of value alignment. Since no cited study directly measures value-related outcomes such as safety under adversarial input, calibration, or agreement with stakeholder values in ambiguous clinical decisions, the review's headline conclusion is currently unsupported by its own evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3.3] The central claim that LLMs 'can better follow human values' is not supported by the cited evidence because the paper equates task competence with value alignment. In Section 3.3, passing the USMLE is described as 'model cognition verification' that helps 'students and educators trust LLMs.' Passing a multiple-choice licensing exam is neither necessary nor sufficient for following human values in open-ended clinical conversations, where the relevant behaviors include admitting uncertainty, refusing unsafe requests, and calibrating confidence. None of the cited exam studies (Subramani et al., Kung et al., Gilson et al.) reports such value-related outcomes. The abstract's 'human values' claim therefore overstates what the evidence shows, and this conflation is load-bearing for the paper's main thesis.
  2. [Section 3.4] The paper treats predictive accuracy on administrative or forecasting tasks as evidence of alignment with payer values. It states that ClinicalBERT 'aligns' with payer needs via 30-day hospital readmission prediction and that Foresight enables 'probabilistic forecasts for future medical events.' These are task-performance results, not measurements of value alignment or clinical trustworthiness. A model that accurately predicts readmissions may still produce biased or privacy-violating outputs, and a forecasting model may be accurate without reflecting payers' ethical or regulatory values. The Section 3.4 discussion should either present these systems as examples of domain adaptation for specific tasks or add explicit evidence that such accuracy translates into stakeholder-value alignment.
  3. [Section 2] The scope of 'LLM' is ambiguous because the paper labels BERT-style encoder-only models as LLMs. PubMedBERT, BioBERT, ClinicalBERT, and sciBERT are introduced as examples of pretraining 'aligning general-purpose LLMs in the healthcare domain,' yet these are masked language models with encoder-only architectures, not autoregressive large language models in the sense of ChatGPT, LLaMA, or PaLM discussed elsewhere in the paper. This ambiguity affects the review's central terminology and should be resolved by either restricting the term 'LLM' to generative models or explicitly defining a broader category that includes encoder-only biomedical language models.
  4. [Section 4] The claim that ChatGPT 'is found to be able to pass the medical licensing examinations in English ... while failing in Asian languages' is overbroad. The cited studies (Liu et al. 2023b; Kasai et al. 2023) evaluate early versions of GPT-3.5/ChatGPT on specific Chinese and Japanese examinations, not current ChatGPT or all 'Asian languages.' Generalizing from these results to a blanket statement about non-English alignment ignores subsequent model improvements and the heterogeneity of Asian-language medical exams. The sentence should be qualified to name the models, languages, and exam versions actually evaluated.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'A P ATHWAY' should read 'A PATHWAY.'
  2. [Throughout] Model names are spelled inconsistently: 'LlaMA' appears alongside 'LLaMA' and 'Llama' (e.g., Section 2 and references). Please standardize.
  3. [Section 2] The sentence 'Available tools from prompt tuning, prefix tuning, and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) can help LLMs accomplish healthcare tasks' would be clearer as 'Tools such as prompt tuning, prefix tuning, and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) can help...'.
  4. [Section 3.1] The claim that 'CliniDigest can reduce up to 85 clinical trial descriptions (approximately 10,500 words) into a concise 200-word summary' would benefit from citing the evaluation criteria that support calling the summary 'truthful'—the current text asserts truthfulness without reporting verification methodology.
  5. [Section 4] The phrase 'promoting unfactual knowledge' should be 'promoting factually incorrect knowledge' or 'propagating misinformation.'
  6. [References] Some references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted (e.g., the 'Food, Drug Administration, et al.' entry lacks a full title and publication venue; several arXiv preprints are cited without version numbers). A careful reference pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review is a narrative synthesis of external empirical studies, and the few self-citations are non-load-bearing references to prior concrete results.

full rationale

This is a narrative review with no mathematical derivation, no fitted parameters, and no prediction that is statistically forced. The central claim from the Abstract—that 'LLMs can better follow human values by properly enhancing healthcare knowledge integration, task understanding, and human guidance'—is an argumentative synthesis of cited empirical studies, not a result derived from the paper's own equations or assumptions. The authors' self-citations (Ding et al. 2023, Zhang & Metaxas 2024, Zhang et al. 2024, Gu et al. 2025, Gao et al. 2024, Tan et al. 2025) are used as ordinary references to prior concrete works: synthetic pathological datasets, medical image analysis challenges, data-centric healthcare surveys, radiology report generation with vision-language alignment, explainable medical image classification, and open-source foundation-model development. None of these self-citations is used to forbid alternatives, to import a uniqueness theorem, or to justify the central claim by appeal to the authors' own authority. No quantity is fitted and then renamed as a prediction; no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The paper's discussion of alignment techniques (RLHF, instruction tuning, CoT, domain-specific pretraining) cites independent external sources (e.g., Ouyang et al. 2022, Singhal et al. 2025a, Chen et al. 2023) rather than relying solely on the authors' prior work. A reader may debate whether benchmark accuracy constitutes evidence of value alignment, but that is a correctness or evidence-quality concern, not a circularity concern under the defined patterns. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a narrative review with no new models, data, or mathematical derivations. The central claims rest on the reliability of the cited literature and the assumption that human-in-the-loop techniques improve alignment in practice. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Alignment techniques such as RLHF, instruction tuning, and chain-of-thought prompting improve LLM alignment with healthcare stakeholders as described in the cited studies.
    The review relies on the validity of these cited techniques without critical evaluation; if the techniques underperform in real clinical settings, the central recommendation to invest in human-in-the-loop alignment would be weakened. See Section 2 and Table 1.
  • domain assumption The cited studies are representative of the broader literature and accurately report their findings.
    The review constructs its narrative from individual citations without a systematic search or meta-analysis, so its conclusions depend on the quality and representativeness of the selected papers. See Section 3 and the reference list.
  • domain assumption Healthcare stakeholders' preferences and values can be elicited and encoded as stable alignment targets across contexts.
    The review assumes that aligning to 'human values' is well-defined and feasible, but this is contested in the alignment literature. This premise is implicit in the framing throughout Sections 1 and 2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Aligning Large Language Models with Healthcare Stakeholders: A Pathway to Trustworthy AI Integration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I6AKGKTL

@misc{pith2026250502848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Aligning Large Language Models with Healthcare Stakeholders: A Pathway to Trustworthy AI Integration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I6AKGKTL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02848}
}
read the original abstract

The wide exploration of large language models (LLMs) raises the awareness of alignment between healthcare stakeholder preferences and model outputs. This alignment becomes a crucial foundation to empower the healthcare workflow effectively, safely, and responsibly. Yet the varying behaviors of LLMs may not always match with healthcare stakeholders' knowledge, demands, and values. To enable a human-AI alignment, healthcare stakeholders will need to perform essential roles in guiding and enhancing the performance of LLMs. Human professionals must participate in the entire life cycle of adopting LLM in healthcare, including training data curation, model training, and inference. In this review, we discuss the approaches, tools, and applications of alignments between healthcare stakeholders and LLMs. We demonstrate that LLMs can better follow human values by properly enhancing healthcare knowledge integration, task understanding, and human guidance. We provide outlooks on enhancing the alignment between humans and LLMs to build trustworthy real-world healthcare applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02848 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of aligning large language models (LLMs) with key healthcare stakeholders and the outlook for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023a. Guilherme Penedo, Quentin Malartic, Daniel Hesslow, Ruxandra Cojocaru, Alessandro Cappelli, Hamz...

    arXiv

  2. [3]

    Can large language models provide feedback to students? a case study on chatgpt

    Wei Dai, Jionghao Lin, Hua Jin, Tongguang Li, Yi-Shan Tsai, Dragan Gaševi´c, and Guanliang Chen. Can large language models provide feedback to students? a case study on chatgpt. In 2023 IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT), pages 323–325. IEEE,

    work page 2023

  3. [6]

    Parameter-efficient fine-tuning of llama for the clinical domain

    Aryo Pradipta Gema, Pasquale Minervini, Luke Daines, Tom Hope, and Beatrice Alex. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning of llama for the clinical domain. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03042,

    arXiv

  4. [7]

    Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models

    Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171,

    arXiv

  5. [9]

    Large language model alignment: A survey

    Tianhao Shen, Renren Jin, Yufei Huang, Chuang Liu, Weilong Dong, Zishan Guo, Xinwei Wu, Yan Liu, and Deyi Xiong. Large language model alignment: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15025, 2023a. Hangfan Zhang, Zhimeng Guo, Huaisheng Zhu, Bochuan Cao, Lu Lin, Jinyuan Jia, Jinghui Chen, and Dinghao Wu. On the safety of open-sourced large language models: Do...

    arXiv

  6. [10]

    Data-centric foundation models in computational healthcare: A survey

    Yunkun Zhang, Jin Gao, Zheling Tan, Lingfeng Zhou, Kexin Ding, Mu Zhou, Shaoting Zhang, and Dequan Wang. Data-centric foundation models in computational healthcare: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02458,

    arXiv

  7. [13]

    Radiology-llama2: Best-in-class large language model for radiology

    Zhengliang Liu, Yiwei Li, Peng Shu, Aoxiao Zhong, Longtao Yang, Chao Ju, Zihao Wu, Chong Ma, Jie Luo, Cheng Chen, et al. Radiology-llama2: Best-in-class large language model for radiology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06419, 2023a. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwa...

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    Rrhf: Rank responses to align language models with human feedback without tears

    Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Chuanqi Tan, Wei Wang, Songfang Huang, and Fei Huang. Rrhf: Rank responses to align language models with human feedback without tears. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05302,

    arXiv

Show all 28 references
  1. [15]

    Chatgpt for clinical vignette generation, revision, and evaluation

    James RA Benoit. Chatgpt for clinical vignette generation, revision, and evaluation. MedRxiv, pages 2023–02,

    2023

  2. [16]

    Progen: Language modeling for protein generation

    Ali Madani, Bryan McCann, Nikhil Naik, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Namrata Anand, Raphael R Eguchi, Po-Ssu Huang, and Richard Socher. Progen: Language modeling for protein generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03497,

    2004 arXiv

  3. [17]

    Galactica: A large language model for science

    Ross Taylor, Marcin Kardas, Guillem Cucurull, Thomas Scialom, Anthony Hartshorn, Elvis Saravia, Andrew Poulton, Viktor Kerkez, and Robert Stojnic. Galactica: A large language model for science. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.09085,

    arXiv

  4. [18]

    Autotrial: prompting language models for clinical trial design

    Zifeng Wang, Cao Xiao, and Jimeng Sun. Autotrial: prompting language models for clinical trial design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11366, 2023b. Qiao Jin, Zifeng Wang, Charalampos S Floudas, Fangyuan Chen, Changlin Gong, Dara Bracken-Clarke, Elisabetta Xue, Yifan Yang, Jimeng Su...

    arXiv

  5. [19]

    Improving patient pre-screening for clinical trials: assisting physicians with large language models

    Danny M den Hamer, Perry Schoor, Tobias B Polak, and Daniel Kapitan. Improving patient pre-screening for clinical trials: assisting physicians with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07396,

    arXiv

  6. [20]

    Clinidigest: a case study in large language model based large-scale summarization of clinical trial descriptions

    Renee White, Tristan Peng, Pann Sripitak, Alexander Rosenberg Johansen, and Michael Snyder. Clinidigest: a case study in large language model based large-scale summarization of clinical trial descriptions. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Information Technology for...

    2023

  7. [21]

    Mentalbert: Publicly available pretrained language models for mental healthcare

    Shaoxiong Ji, Tianlin Zhang, Luna Ansari, Jie Fu, Prayag Tiwari, and Erik Cambria. Mentalbert: Publicly available pretrained language models for mental healthcare. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.15621,

    arXiv

  8. [22]

    Neural language models with distant supervision to identify major depressive disorder from clinical notes

    10 Aligning Large Language Models with Healthcare Stakeholders: A Pathway to Trustworthy AI Integration Bhavani Singh Agnikula Kshatriya, Nicolas A Nunez, Manuel Gardea Resendez, Euijung Ryu, Brandon J Coombes, Sunyang Fu, Mark A Frye, Joanna M Biernacka, and Yanshan Wang. Neu...

    arXiv

  9. [23]

    How does chatgpt perform on the medical licensing exams? the implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment

    Aidan Gilson, Conrad Safranek, Thomas Huang, Vimig Socrates, Ling Chi, R Andrew Taylor, and David Chartash. How does chatgpt perform on the medical licensing exams? the implications of large language models for medical education and knowledge assessment. MedRxiv, pages 2022–12,

    2022

  10. [24]

    Medalpaca–an open-source collection of medical conversational ai models and training data

    Tianyu Han, Lisa C Adams, Jens-Michalis Papaioannou, Paul Grundmann, Tom Oberhauser, Alexander Löser, Daniel Truhn, and Keno K Bressem. Medalpaca–an open-source collection of medical conversational ai models and training data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08247,

    arXiv

  11. [25]

    Performance of chatgpt on clinical medicine entrance examination for chinese postgraduate in chinese

    Xiao Liu, Changchang Fang, Ziwei Yan, Xiaoling Liu, Yuan Jiang, Zhengyu Cao, Maoxiong Wu, Zhiteng Chen, Jianyong Ma, Peng Yu, et al. Performance of chatgpt on clinical medicine entrance examination for chinese postgraduate in chinese. MedRxiv, pages 2023–04, 2023b. Jungo Kasai...

    2023 arXiv

  12. [26]

    Radalign: Advancing radiology report generation with vision-language concept alignment

    Difei Gu, Yunhe Gao, Yang Zhou, Mu Zhou, and Dimitris Metaxas. Radalign: Advancing radiology report generation with vision-language concept alignment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07525,

    arXiv

  13. [27]

    Rlaif vs

    Harrison Lee, Samrat Phatale, Hassan Mansoor, Thomas Mesnard, Johan Ferret, Kellie Lu, Colton Bishop, Ethan Hall, Victor Carbune, Abhinav Rastogi, et al. Rlaif vs. rlhf: Scaling reinforcement learning from human feedback with ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00267, 2023b...

    arXiv

  14. [28]

    Medforge: Building medical foundation models like open source software development

    Zheling Tan, Kexin Ding, Jin Gao, Mu Zhou, Dimitris Metaxas, Shaoting Zhang, and Dequan Wang. Medforge: Building medical foundation models like open source software development. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16055,

    arXiv

  15. [2019]

    Aligning large language models with human: A survey

    8 Aligning Large Language Models with Healthcare Stakeholders: A Pathway to Trustworthy AI Integration Yufei Wang, Wanjun Zhong, Liangyou Li, Fei Mi, Xingshan Zeng, Wenyong Huang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, and Qun Liu. Aligning large language models with human: A survey. arXiv ...

    arXiv

  16. [2020]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human langu...

    2019

  17. [2021]

    Continual learning for large language models: A survey

    Tongtong Wu, Linhao Luo, Yuan-Fang Li, Shirui Pan, Thuy-Trang Vu, and Gholamreza Haffari. Continual learning for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01364, 2024a. Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. Scibert: A pretrained language model for scientific t...

    1903 arXiv

  18. [2022]

    Clinicalbert: Modeling clinical notes and predicting hospital readmission

    Kexin Huang, Jaan Altosaar, and Rajesh Ranganath. Clinicalbert: Modeling clinical notes and predicting hospital readmission. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05342,

    1904 arXiv

  19. [2023]

    covllm: Large language models for covid-19 biomedical literature

    Yousuf A Khan, Clarisse Hokia, Jennifer Xu, and Ben Ehlert. covllm: Large language models for covid-19 biomedical literature. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04926,

    arXiv

  20. [2024]

    Benefits, limits, and risks of gpt-4 as an ai chatbot for medicine

    Peter Lee, Sebastien Bubeck, and Joseph Petro. Benefits, limits, and risks of gpt-4 as an ai chatbot for medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 388(13):1233–1239, 2023a. Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Alm...

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.