Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated increasingly sophisticated performance in medical and other fields of knowledge. Traditional methods of creating specialist LLMs require extensive fine-tuning and training of models on large datasets. Recently, prompt engineering, instead of fine-tuning, has shown potential to boost the performance of general foundation models. However, prompting methods such as chain-of-thought (CoT) may not be suitable for all subspecialty, and k-shot approaches may introduce irrelevant tokens into the context space. We present AutoMedPrompt, which explores the use of textual gradients to elicit medically relevant reasoning through system prompt optimization. AutoMedPrompt leverages TextGrad's automatic differentiation via text to improve the ability of general foundation LLMs. We evaluated AutoMedPrompt on Llama 3, an open-source LLM, using several QA benchmarks, including MedQA, PubMedQA, and the nephrology subspecialty-specific NephSAP. Our results show that prompting with textual gradients outperforms previous methods on open-source LLMs and surpasses proprietary models such as GPT-4, Claude 3 Opus, and Med-PaLM 2. AutoMedPrompt sets a new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on PubMedQA with an accuracy of 82.6$\%$, while also outperforming previous prompting strategies on open-sourced models for MedQA (77.7$\%$) and NephSAP (63.8$\%$).

In recent years, there have been significant breakthroughs in the field of natural language processing, particularly with the development of large language models (LLMs). These LLMs have showcased remarkable capabilities on various benchmarks. In the healthcare field, the exact role LLMs and other future AI models will play remains unclear. There is a potential for these models in the future to be used as part of adaptive physician training, medical co-pilot applications, and digital patient interaction scenarios. The ability of AI models to participate in medical training and patient care will depend in part on their mastery of the knowledge content of specific medical fields. This study investigated the medical knowledge capability of LLMs, specifically in the context of internal medicine subspecialty multiple-choice test-taking ability. We compared the performance of several open-source LLMs (Koala 7B, Falcon 7B, Stable-Vicuna 13B, and Orca Mini 13B), to GPT-4 and Claude 2 on multiple-choice questions in the field of Nephrology. Nephrology was chosen as an example of a particularly conceptually complex subspecialty field within internal medicine. The study was conducted to evaluate the ability of LLM models to provide correct answers to nephSAP (Nephrology Self-Assessment Program) multiple-choice questions. The overall success of open-sourced LLMs in answering the 858 nephSAP multiple-choice questions correctly was 17.1% - 25.5%. In contrast, Claude 2 answered 54.4% of the questions correctly, whereas GPT-4 achieved a score of 73.3%. We show that current widely used open-sourced LLMs do poorly in their ability for zero-shot reasoning when compared to GPT-4 and Claude 2. The findings of this study potentially have significant implications for the future of subspecialty medical training and patient care.