Back

A Comparative Benchmark of Biomedical Language Models for Concept Normalization from Real-World Text

Verma, A.; Abhijay, ; Vangani, M.; Prakash, S.; Chaudhary, K.

2026-09-21 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.09.19.752843 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Patient-reported and clinically documented narratives often contain informal, fragmented and linguistically heterogeneous expressions, complicating medical concept normalization (MCN) and frequently necessitating pre-processing before terminology mapping. Despite rapid advances in biomedical language modeling, the comparative utility of representation models for MCN and their integration with instruction-tuned LLMs in automated normalization workflows remain underexplored. In this study, we systematically benchmarked 15 general, biomedical and clinical transformer-based representation models together with 12 instruction-tuned LLMs across 12,713 instances from five established datasets: TAC2017_ADR, TwADR-L, TwiMed, CADEC and SMM4H2017. Representation models were evaluated using embedding-based semantic retrieval, whereas instruction-tuned LLMs were assessed as upstream text-correction modules. SapBERT achieved the highest Top-5 accuracy among representation models, reaching 63.8% for SNOMED CT and 58.0% for MedDRA without correction. Qwen 2 Instruct was selected as the preferred corrector on the basis of its favorable balance between Top-1 normalization performance and computational efficiency relative to substantially larger models, including Llama 3.1 Instruct (70B). Incorporation of Qwen 2 Instruct increased Top-5 accuracy to 69.4% for SNOMED CT and 63.2% for MedDRA. The resulting framework accepts heterogeneous short medical expressions without manual input pre-processing and automatically performs text refinement, semantic retrieval and terminology mapping to standardized concepts and vocabulary codes. These findings establish a benchmark-guided, scalable framework for automated medical terminology standardization.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.