Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

ClinicalBench: Can LLMs Beat Traditional ML Models in Clinical Prediction?

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 2411.06469 v2 pith:KJKPA7MF submitted 2024-11-10 cs.CL

ClinicalBench: Can LLMs Beat Traditional ML Models in Clinical Prediction?

classification cs.CL
keywords clinicalllmsmodelstraditionalmedicalpredictionclinicalbenchbeat
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) hold great promise to revolutionize current clinical systems for their superior capacities on medical text processing tasks and medical licensing exams. Meanwhile, traditional ML models such as SVM and XGBoost have still been mainly adopted in clinical prediction tasks. An emerging question is: Can LLMs beat traditional ML models in clinical prediction? Thus, we build a new benchmark ClinicalBench to comprehensively study the clinical predictive modeling capacities of both general-purpose and medical LLMs, and compare them with traditional ML models. ClinicalBench embraces three common clinical prediction tasks, two databases, 14 general-purpose LLMs, 8 medical LLMs, and 11 traditional ML models. Through extensive empirical investigation, we discover that both general-purpose and medical LLMs, even with different model scales, diverse prompting or fine-tuning strategies, still cannot beat traditional ML models in clinical prediction yet, shedding light on their potential deficiency in clinical reasoning and decision-making. We call for caution when practitioners adopt LLMs in clinical applications. ClinicalBench can be utilized to bridge the gap between LLMs' development for healthcare and real-world clinical practice.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Beyond IID: How General Are Tabular Foundation Models, Really?

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Tabular foundation models excel on tiny- to medium-sized IID data but are outperformed by traditional tree-based and deep learning models on non-IID, large, and high-dimensional datasets, based on evaluations across 1...

  2. From Token to Token Pair: Efficient Prompt Compression for Large Language Models in Clinical Prediction

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    MedTPE compresses EHR token sequences by up to 31% via merging common medical token pairs, reducing LLM inference latency 34-63% while maintaining or improving performance on mortality and phenotyping tasks.

  3. The Path to Self-Evolving Clinical Systems: Scaling Medical Agents from Assistance to Autonomy

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5

    Medical agents should be scaled mainly by richer clinical environments and self-evolution loops, not parameter growth alone, under a three-level autonomy taxonomy.