Clinical Language Models (CLaMs)

• Clinical Language Models (CLaMs) are specialized neural language models trained on clinical texts, utilizing tailored vocabularies to accurately capture medical terminology and context.
• They employ domain-adapted techniques such as custom tokenizers, two-phase training, and parameter-efficient fine-tuning to improve performance and cost-efficiency compared to general LLMs.
• Robust privacy-preserving strategies, evaluation frameworks, and bias mitigation practices are integral to CLaMs, addressing challenges in temporal reasoning and secure clinical application.

Clinical LLMs (CLaMs) are specialized neural LLMs trained on clinical or biomedical text with the goal of supporting health-related NLP tasks. Their development is driven by both the linguistic complexity of clinical notes—marked by specialized vocabularies, abbreviations, and temporal information—and the safety-critical, privacy-sensitive nature of clinical applications. CLaMs underpin a wide array of downstream applications, including entity recognition, summarization, question answering, temporal reasoning, structured information extraction, and decision support in healthcare.

1. Domain Adaptation: Corpora, Vocabulary, and Architectural Choices

CLaMs are typically distinguished from general-purpose LMs by their parameterization and training on large corpora of domain-specific text. High-performing models are constructed from extensive de-identified clinical notes (e.g., 75 million notes, 39 billion words from UCSF Health (Sushil et al., 2022)), and their vocabularies are tailored to efficiently encode clinical nomenclature and abbreviations. For instance, custom vocabularies of 64,000 tokens (outmatching the ~30–50k tokens of general BERT) allow such models to process longer documents (reducing average sequence length by 20%), directly benefiting the handling of lengthy clinical narratives.

Transformer-based architectures—most notably BERT, T5, and LLaMA variants—remain the standard backbone for CLaMs. These are sometimes further adapted via parameter-efficient fine-tuning techniques such as QLoRA and knowledge-infused tokenization mechanisms (e.g., K-Tokeniser (Hasan et al., 20 Jun 2024)), which embed semantic knowledge into the tokenization process. The result is improved clinical coding performance and data efficiency.

Two-phase training strategies exploit the quadratic complexity of attention: models are first trained on sequences of up to 128 tokens, then fine-tuned on longer sequences (up to 512 tokens or more), which accelerates convergence and facilitates robust long-context modeling (Sushil et al., 2022).

2. Comparative Performance and Efficiency Relative to General LLMs

A central question is whether general-domain LLMs, pretrained on web-scale data, can obviate the need for domain-specific models. Empirical comparisons across multiple tasks—natural language inference (MedNLI), extractive QA over radiology reports (RadQA), multi-label sentence classification (CLIP)—indicate that relatively small, domain-specific models (e.g., Clinical-T5-Base at 220M parameters) can match or outperform much larger general LLMs, even those accessed in in-context learning setups (GPT-3, Flan-T5-XXL) (Lehman et al., 2023).

This performance gain is attributed to two main factors:

• Token efficiency: Domain-adapted tokenizers better represent abbreviations and clinical nomenclature, reducing FLOPs and memory consumption.
• Parameter efficiency: With domain-specialized knowledge, models require fewer parameters to encode salient patterns, enabling cost-effective deployment.

The model cost, expressed as

$$C_{\text{model}}(P, T_i, T_{pt}, T_{ft}, w) = 6 \times P \times w \times (T_{pt} + T_{ft}) + 2 \times P \times w \times T_i$$

with $P$ (parameters), $T_{pt}, T_{ft}, T_i$ (pretrain, finetune, inference tokens), and $w$ (token length ratio), demonstrates that smaller clinical models amortize their upfront cost across high-volume clinical inference scenarios.

3. Data Privacy and Security Risks

Training on sensitive clinical data introduces unique privacy risks. Membership inference attacks can expose whether particular records were part of a model’s training set. Notably, empirical privacy leakage in autoregressive models (e.g., GPT-2) can be as high as 7%, while masked LMs (BERT, DistilBERT) and smaller models demonstrate substantially less leakage (Jagannatha et al., 2021). Group-level inference (evaluating aggregated records per admission or patient) further inflates leakage risk, especially for patients with rare conditions.

Mitigation strategies include differentially private training—using DP-SGD with Gaussian noise, and Rényi Differential Privacy accounting—that can reduce measured empirical leakage below 1% without degrading, and sometimes even improving, model utility on standard benchmarks. Careful model selection, privacy-preserving training, and tracking of group- and sample-level vulnerabilities are recommended best practices.

4. Temporal, Causal, and Non-Canonical Reasoning

Most CLaMs traditionally treat clinical notes as static sequences. Recent advances introduce temporal entailment pretraining (TEP), wherein models are explicitly trained over pairs of temporally-ordered EHR segments $(x_t, x_{t'})$, and tasked to predict whether the later state is entailed by, contradicts, or is neutral to the earlier state (Tanaka et al., 25 Apr 2025). This reframes the pretraining as a clinical NLI problem:

$$f(x_t, x_{t'}) = y,\quad y \in \{\mathrm{entail}, \mathrm{contradict}, \mathrm{neutral}\}$$

using transformer encoders with rotary positional embeddings to preserve temporal order.

TEP provides explicit inductive bias for causal and progression modeling. Models pretrained in this way achieve marked improvements in temporally-structured QA, early warning prediction, and disease stage progression modeling.

Difficulty in capturing temporal, numerical, and causal inference remains a core limitation of existing CLaMs, as highlighted by systematically lower performance on tasks demanding subtle clinical reasoning (even for large models) (Liu et al., 25 Apr 2024, Sushil et al., 2022).

5. Domain-Specific and Agentic Clinical Applications

CLaMs are increasingly deployed in sophisticated clinical scenarios:

• Dialogue and Ambiguity Resolution: Multi-turn clarification frameworks such as CLAM enable models to detect ambiguous queries, solicit clarification, and produce more reliable final answers (Kuhn et al., 2022). These meta-cognitive approaches are critical for patient-facing or decision-support deployments where ambiguous queries may otherwise yield hallucinated or unsafe guidance.
• Conversational Data Collection and Annotation: In mental health research, context-aware, fine-tuned seq2seq LMs can conduct and annotate complex multi-turn clinical interviews, outperforming commercial LLMs in scoring subtle behavioral variables (e.g., engagement, clarity, focus) (Aich et al., 18 Jun 2024).
• Structured Information Extraction: Automated conversion of nurse dictations and doctor–patient dialogues into structured EHR inputs (JSON flowsheets, medical order arrays) is addressed with hybrid pipelines exploiting zero- and few-shot prompting, RAG-based candidate filtering, and synthetic data generation—enabling robust handling of long, disfluent, and free-form hospital speech (Corbeil et al., 7 Jul 2025).
• Hospital Course Summarisation and Clinical Coding: Fine-tuning LLMs on concatenated EMR note timelines with tailored evaluation metrics (e.g., CHoCoSA, which scores presence of six clinical information fields) yields models capable of generating clinically relevant, coding-oriented summaries (Bi et al., 23 Sep 2024).
• Retrieval-Augmented Decision Support: Models such as Almanac ground generative outputs in indexed external guidelines, ensuring answers are both evidence-based and citeable (Zakka et al., 2023). Integration of context retrieval, response abstention on low-confidence queries, and corroborating citations collectively enhance safety, factuality, and usability.

6. Evaluation, Bias, Transparency, and Emerging Benchmarks

CLaM evaluation increasingly leverages large, multi-dimensional benchmarks that cover clinical QA, summarization, reasoning, medical order extraction, hallucination, and bias. Notable frameworks include:

• ClinicBench and BenchHealth: Cover a broad spectrum of clinical NLP tasks, yielding nuanced insights into model performance and highlighting persistent deficits in open-ended reasoning and decision-making capabilities, even for top-performing closed-source LLMs (Liu et al., 25 Apr 2024).
• CLIMB: Systematically quantifies both intrinsic bias (model tendency to associate diseases with demographic subgroups, measured via AssocMAD) and extrinsic bias (diagnostic disparities under demographic counterfactuals), revealing that medically-adapted LLMs may inherit or worsen demographic biases (Zhang et al., 7 Jul 2024).
• CliMedBench: A multi-scenario, multi-role Chinese benchmark underscores the challenges for both general and specialized LLMs, particularly for input capacity, instruction following, and clinical reasoning (Ouyang et al., 4 Oct 2024).
• Spanish Clinical Models: Extensive benchmarking (over 3,000 model–corpus pairs) illuminates the strengths of encoder models like RigoBERTa 2 and identifies resource gaps in non-English clinical NLP (Subies et al., 2023).

Human evaluation remains indispensable for assessing clinical usefulness, faithfulness (precision/absence of hallucination), comprehensiveness (recall), robustness (variance across inputs), and generalizability.

7. Security, Privacy, and Ethical Considerations

CLaMs deployed in clinical decision support roles present new attack surfaces. Attention-based backdoor attacks (e.g., BadCLM), which manipulate model attentions via auxiliary training losses to stealthily embed triggers, can produce label-flipping misclassifications (attack success rates ~90%), while maintaining normal predictive accuracy on clean samples (Lyu et al., 6 Jul 2024). Group-level membership inference and enhanced leakage risk for rare diseases additionally illustrate the necessity of differential privacy and robust defense protocols.

Ethically, the need for privacy-preserving pretraining is acute. Rephrasing strategies—where small LLMs reformulate real EHR notes into synthetic, non-identifiable text—yield effective proxies for pretraining and enable broader data sharing without compromising confidentiality (Liu et al., 28 Nov 2024). Nevertheless, the risk of subtle semantic drift or bias amplification remains a concern and requires ongoing qualitative and quantitative scrutiny.

---

Clinical LLMs thus represent a rigorously advancing intersection of LLMing, privacy engineering, clinical data science, and human-centered evaluation. The evolving research landscape prioritizes domain adaptation, data efficiency, privacy, bias mitigation, and real-world robustness to meet the stringent requirements of clinical deployment. Persistent challenges—reasoning under ambiguity, handling temporal information, scaling across non-English settings, and ensuring security—constitute active areas for continued empirical and methodological innovation.