Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Are Clinical T5 Models Better for Clinical Text?

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 2412.05845 v1 pith:ZMJG2VR3 submitted 2024-12-08 cs.CL

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

Large language models with a transformer-based encoder/decoder architecture, such as T5, have become standard platforms for supervised tasks. To bring these technologies to the clinical domain, recent work has trained new or adapted existing models to clinical data. However, the evaluation of these clinical T5 models and comparison to other models has been limited. Are the clinical T5 models better choices than FLAN-tuned generic T5 models? Do they generalize better to new clinical domains that differ from the training sets? We comprehensively evaluate these models across several clinical tasks and domains. We find that clinical T5 models provide marginal improvements over existing models, and perform worse when evaluated on different domains. Our results inform future choices in developing clinical LLMs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Diagnosing our datasets: How does my language model learn clinical information?

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The frequency of clinical jargon in pretraining corpora predicts how well open-source LLMs interpret that jargon, but hospital notes use abbreviations that appear only rarely online.

Pith tools