REVIEW 1 cited by
Development and bilingual evaluation of Japanese medical large language model within reasonably low computational resources
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
read the original abstract
The recent success of large language models (LLMs) and the scaling law has led to a widespread adoption of larger models. Particularly in the healthcare industry, there is an increasing demand for locally operated LLMs due to security concerns. However, the majority of high quality open-source LLMs have a size of 70B parameters, imposing significant financial burdens on users for GPU preparation and operation. To overcome these issues, we present a medical adaptation based on the recent 7B models, which enables the operation in low computational resources. We compare the performance on medical question-answering benchmarks in two languages (Japanese and English), demonstrating that its scores reach parity with or surpass those of currently existing medical LLMs that are ten times larger. We find that fine-tuning an English-centric base model on Japanese medical dataset improves the score in both language, supporting the effect of cross-lingual knowledge transfer. We hope that this study will alleviate financial challenges, serving as a stepping stone for clinical institutions to practically utilize LLMs locally. Our evaluation code is available at https://github.com/stardust-coder/japanese-lm-med-harness.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
A Japanese Language Model and Three New Evaluation Benchmarks for Pharmaceutical NLP
A continually pretrained 7B Japanese pharmaceutical LLM outperforms open medical models on new Japanese pharma benchmarks, while all models, including GPT-4o, fail at cross-sentence consistency checks.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.