--The emergence of advanced reasoning capabilities in Large Language Models (LLMs) marks a transformative development in healthcare applications. Beyond merely expanding functional capabilities, these reasoning mechanisms enhance decision transparency and explainability-critical requirements in medical contexts. This survey examines the transformation of medical LLMs from basic information retrieval tools to sophisticated clinical reasoning systems capable of supporting complex healthcare decisions. We provide a thorough analysis of the enabling technological foundations, with a particular focus on specialized prompting techniques like Chain-of-Thought and recent breakthroughs in Reinforcement Learning exemplified by DeepSeek-R1. Our investigation evaluates purpose-built medical frameworks while also examining emerging paradigms such as multi-agent collaborative systems and innovative prompting architectures. The survey critically assesses current evaluation methodologies for medical validation and addresses persistent challenges in field interpretation limitations, bias mitigation strategies, patient safety frameworks, and integration of mul-timodal clinical data. Through this survey, we seek to establish a roadmap for developing reliable LLMs that can serve as effective partners in clinical practice and medical research. The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into healthcare has promised to revolutionize medical practice, from diagnostics to personalized medicine [1]. Among AI's most dynamic subfields, Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated remarkable capabilities in understanding, generating, and manipulating human language, leading to their exploration in numerous specialized domains [2].

Large language models, such as GPT-4 and Med-PaLM, have shown impressive performance on clinical tasks; however, they require access to compute, are closed-source, and cannot be deployed on device. Mid-size models such as BioGPT-large, BioMedLM, LLaMA 2, and Mistral 7B avoid these drawbacks, but their capacity for clinical tasks has been understudied. To help assess their potential for clinical use and help researchers decide which model they should use, we compare their performance on two clinical question-answering (QA) tasks: MedQA and consumer query answering. We find that Mistral 7B is the best performing model, winning on all benchmarks and outperforming models trained specifically for the biomedical domain. While Mistral 7B's MedQA score of 63.0% approaches the original Med-PaLM, and it often can produce plausible responses to consumer health queries, room for improvement still exists. This study provides the first head-to-head assessment of open source mid-sized models on clinical tasks.

LLMs are revolutionizing NLP tasks. However, the use of the most advanced LLMs, such as GPT-4, is often prohibitively expensive for most specialized fields. We introduce HEAL, the first continuously trained 13B LLaMA2-based LLM that is purpose-built for medical conversations and measured on automated scribing. Our results demonstrate that HEAL outperforms GPT-4 and PMC-LLaMA in PubMedQA, with an accuracy of 78.4\%. It also achieves parity with GPT-4 in generating medical notes. Remarkably, HEAL surpasses GPT-4 and Med-PaLM 2 in identifying more correct medical concepts and exceeds the performance of human scribes and other comparable models in correctness and completeness.

Large language models (LLMs) hold immense promise to serve complex health information needs but also have the potential to introduce harm and exacerbate health disparities. Reliably evaluating equity-related model failures is a critical step toward developing systems that promote health equity. In this work, we present resources and methodologies for surfacing biases with potential to precipitate equity-related harms in long-form, LLM-generated answers to medical questions and then conduct an empirical case study with Med-PaLM 2, resulting in the largest human evaluation study in this area to date. Our contributions include a multifactorial framework for human assessment of LLM-generated answers for biases, and EquityMedQA, a collection of seven newly-released datasets comprising both manually-curated and LLM-generated questions enriched for adversarial queries. Both our human assessment framework and dataset design process are grounded in an iterative participatory approach and review of possible biases in Med-PaLM 2 answers to adversarial queries. Through our empirical study, we find that the use of a collection of datasets curated through a variety of methodologies, coupled with a thorough evaluation protocol that leverages multiple assessment rubric designs and diverse rater groups, surfaces biases that may be missed via narrower evaluation approaches. Our experience underscores the importance of using diverse assessment methodologies and involving raters of varying backgrounds and expertise. We emphasize that while our framework can identify specific forms of bias, it is not sufficient to holistically assess whether the deployment of an AI system promotes equitable health outcomes. We hope the broader community leverages and builds on these tools and methods towards realizing a shared goal of LLMs that promote accessible and equitable healthcare for all.

Large language models have the potential to be valuable in the healthcare industry, but it's crucial to verify their safety and effectiveness through rigorous evaluation. For this purpose, we comprehensively evaluated both open-source LLMs and Google's new multimodal LLM called Gemini across Medical reasoning, hallucination detection, and Medical Visual Question Answering tasks. While Gemini showed competence, it lagged behind state-of-the-art models like MedPaLM 2 and GPT-4 in diagnostic accuracy. Additionally, Gemini achieved an accuracy of 61.45\% on the medical VQA dataset, significantly lower than GPT-4V's score of 88\%. Our analysis revealed that Gemini is highly susceptible to hallucinations, overconfidence, and knowledge gaps, which indicate risks if deployed uncritically. We also performed a detailed analysis by medical subject and test type, providing actionable feedback for developers and clinicians. To mitigate risks, we applied prompting strategies that improved performance. Additionally, we facilitated future research and development by releasing a Python module for medical LLM evaluation and establishing a dedicated leaderboard on Hugging Face for medical domain LLMs. Python module can be found at https://github.com/promptslab/RosettaEval

Generalist foundation models such as GPT-4 have displayed surprising capabilities in a wide variety of domains and tasks. Yet, there is a prevalent assumption that they cannot match specialist capabilities of fine-tuned models. For example, most explorations to date on medical competency benchmarks have leveraged domain-specific training, as exemplified by efforts on BioGPT and Med-PaLM. We build on a prior study of GPT-4's capabilities on medical challenge benchmarks in the absence of special training. Rather than using simple prompting to highlight the model's out-of-the-box capabilities, we perform a systematic exploration of prompt engineering. We find that prompting innovation can unlock deeper specialist capabilities and show that GPT-4 easily tops prior leading results for medical benchmarks. The prompting methods we explore are general purpose, and make no specific use of domain expertise, removing the need for expert-curated content. Our experimental design carefully controls for overfitting during the prompt engineering process. We introduce Medprompt, based on a composition of several prompting strategies. With Medprompt, GPT-4 achieves state-of-the-art results on all nine of the benchmark datasets in the MultiMedQA suite. The method outperforms leading specialist models such as Med-PaLM 2 by a significant margin with an order of magnitude fewer calls to the model. Steering GPT-4 with Medprompt achieves a 27% reduction in error rate on the MedQA dataset over the best methods to date achieved with specialist models and surpasses a score of 90% for the first time. Beyond medical problems, we show the power of Medprompt to generalize to other domains and provide evidence for the broad applicability of the approach via studies of the strategy on exams in electrical engineering, machine learning, philosophy, accounting, law, nursing, and clinical psychology.

In response to the pressing need for advanced clinical problem-solving tools in healthcare, we introduce BooksMed, a novel framework based on a Large Language Model (LLM). BooksMed uniquely emulates human cognitive processes to deliver evidence-based and reliable responses, utilizing the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework to effectively quantify evidence strength. For clinical decision-making to be appropriately assessed, an evaluation metric that is clinically aligned and validated is required. As a solution, we present ExpertMedQA, a multispecialty clinical benchmark comprised of open-ended, expert-level clinical questions, and validated by a diverse group of medical professionals. By demanding an in-depth understanding and critical appraisal of up-to-date clinical literature, ExpertMedQA rigorously evaluates LLM performance. BooksMed outperforms existing state-of-the-art models Med-PaLM 2, Almanac, and ChatGPT in a variety of medical scenarios. Therefore, a framework that mimics human cognitive stages could be a useful tool for providing reliable and evidence-based responses to clinical inquiries.

We present Clinical Camel, an open large language model (LLM) explicitly tailored for clinical research. Fine-tuned from LLaMA-2 using QLoRA, Clinical Camel achieves state-of-the-art performance across medical benchmarks among openly available medical LLMs. Leveraging efficient single-GPU training, Clinical Camel surpasses GPT-3.5 in five-shot evaluations on all assessed benchmarks, including 64.3% on the USMLE Sample Exam (compared to 58.5% for GPT-3.5), 77.9% on PubMedQA (compared to 60.2%), 60.7% on MedQA (compared to 53.6%), and 54.2% on MedMCQA (compared to 51.0%). In addition to these benchmarks, Clinical Camel demonstrates its broader capabilities, such as synthesizing plausible clinical notes. This work introduces dialogue-based knowledge encoding, a novel method to synthesize conversational data from dense medical texts. While benchmark results are encouraging, extensive and rigorous human evaluation across diverse clinical scenarios is imperative to ascertain safety before implementation. By openly sharing Clinical Camel, we hope to foster transparent and collaborative research, working towards the safe integration of LLMs within the healthcare domain. Significant challenges concerning reliability, bias, and the potential for outdated knowledge persist. Nonetheless, the transparency provided by an open approach reinforces the scientific rigor essential for future clinical applications.

The current work investigates the capability of Large language models (LLMs) that are explicitly trained on large corpuses of medical knowledge (Med-PaLM 2) to predict psychiatric functioning from patient interviews and clinical descriptions without being trained to do so. To assess this, n = 145 depression and n =115 PTSD assessments and n = 46 clinical case studies across high prevalence/high comorbidity disorders (Depressive, Anxiety, Psychotic, trauma and stress, Addictive disorders) were analyzed using prompts to extract estimated clinical scores and diagnoses. Results demonstrate that Med-PaLM 2 is capable of assessing psychiatric functioning across a range of psychiatric conditions with the strongest performance being the prediction of depression scores based on standardized assessments (Accuracy range= 0.80 - 0.84) which were statistically indistinguishable from human clinical raters t(1,144) = 1.20; p = 0.23. Results show the potential for general clinical language models to flexibly predict psychiatric risk based on free descriptions of functioning from both patients and clinicians.

Recent artificial intelligence (AI) systems have reached milestones in "grand challenges" ranging from Go to protein-folding. The capability to retrieve medical knowledge, reason over it, and answer medical questions comparably to physicians has long been viewed as one such grand challenge. Large language models (LLMs) have catalyzed significant progress in medical question answering; Med-PaLM was the first model to exceed a "passing" score in US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) style questions with a score of 67.2% on the MedQA dataset. However, this and other prior work suggested significant room for improvement, especially when models' answers were compared to clinicians' answers. Here we present Med-PaLM 2, which bridges these gaps by leveraging a combination of base LLM improvements (PaLM 2), medical domain finetuning, and prompting strategies including a novel ensemble refinement approach. Med-PaLM 2 scored up to 86.5% on the MedQA dataset, improving upon Med-PaLM by over 19% and setting a new state-of-the-art. We also observed performance approaching or exceeding state-of-the-art across MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and MMLU clinical topics datasets. We performed detailed human evaluations on long-form questions along multiple axes relevant to clinical applications. In pairwise comparative ranking of 1066 consumer medical questions, physicians preferred Med-PaLM 2 answers to those produced by physicians on eight of nine axes pertaining to clinical utility (p < 0.001). We also observed significant improvements compared to Med-PaLM on every evaluation axis (p < 0.001) on newly introduced datasets of 240 long-form "adversarial" questions to probe LLM limitations. While further studies are necessary to validate the efficacy of these models in real-world settings, these results highlight rapid progress towards physician-level performance in medical question answering.