Evaluating the ChatGPT family of models for biomedical reasoning and classification

Objective Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive ability in biomedical question-answering, but have not been adequately investigated for more specific biomedical applications. This study investigates ChatGPT family of models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4) in biomedical tasks beyond question-answering.Materials and Methods We evaluated model performance with 11 122 samples for two fundamental tasks in the biomedical domain-classification (n = 8676) and reasoning (n = 2446). The first task involves classifying health advice in scientific literature, while the second task is detecting causal relations in biomedical literature. We used 20% of the dataset for prompt development, including zero- and few-shot settings with and without chain-of-thought (CoT). We then evaluated the best prompts from each setting on the remaining dataset, comparing them to models using simple features (BoW with logistic regression) and fine-tuned BioBERT models.Results Fine-tuning BioBERT produced the best classification (F1: 0.800-0.902) and reasoning (F1: 0.851) results. Among LLM approaches, few-shot CoT achieved the best classification (F1: 0.671-0.770) and reasoning (F1: 0.682) results, comparable to the BoW model (F1: 0.602-0.753 and 0.675 for classification and reasoning, respectively). It took 78 h to obtain the best LLM results, compared to 0.078 and 0.008 h for the top-performing BioBERT and BoW models, respectively.Discussion The simple BoW model performed similarly to the most complex LLM prompting. Prompt engineering required significant investment.Conclusion Despite the excitement around viral ChatGPT, fine-tuning for two fundamental biomedical natural language processing tasks remained the best strategy.