Is Biomedical Specialization Still Worth It? Insights from Domain-Adaptive Language Modelling with a New French Health Corpus

This paper narrows the performance gap between small, specialized models and significantly larger general-purpose models through domain adaptation via continual pre-training and merging. We address the scarcity of specialized non-English data by constructing a high-quality German medical corpus (FineMed-de) from FineWeb2. This corpus is used to continually pre-train and merge three well-known LLMs (ranging from $7B$ to $24B$ parameters), creating the DeFineMed model family. A comprehensive evaluation confirms that specialization dramatically enhances $7B$ model performance on German medical benchmarks. Furthermore, the pairwise win-rate analysis of the Qwen2.5-based models demonstrates an approximately $3.5$-fold increase in the win-rate against the much larger Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct through domain adaptation. This evidence positions specialized $7B$ models as a competitive, resource-efficient solution for complex medical instruction-following tasks. While model merging successfully restores instruction-following abilities, a subsequent failure mode analysis reveals inherent trade-offs, including the introduction of language mixing and increased verbosity, highlighting the need for more targeted fine-tuning in future work. This research provides a robust, compliant methodology for developing specialized LLMs, serving as the foundation for practical use in German-speaking healthcare contexts.

The development of large language models (LLMs) has led to an increased focus on their adaptation to specialized domains and languages, yet the effectiveness of domain adaptation strategies remains unclear. We present a study of medical domain adaptation using French medical question-answering (QA) as a case study. We compare continual pretraining (CPT), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and their combination across three model families, multiple sizes, and three initialization types, explicitly disentangling adaptation effects from base model choice. We evaluate both multiple-choice (MCQA) and open-ended QA (OEQA) under greedy and constrained decoding using automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation. For MCQA, CPT+SFT most often achieves the best scores, but gains over SFT are small and frequently not statistically significant, making SFT a strong and cost-effective default. For OEQA, CPT consistently improves overlap-based metrics, while SFT often degrades generation quality; instruction tuning and CPT+SFT are preferred by LLM-based evaluation. Cross-lingual experiments further show effective transfer from French adaptation to English benchmarks. Overall, we provide practical guidelines for selecting adaptation strategies under computational constraints.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown that domain-adapted large language models (LLMs) do not consistently outperform general-purpose counterparts on standard medical benchmarks, raising questions about the need for specialized clinical adaptation. METHODS: We systematically compare general and clinical LLMs on a diverse set of multiple choice clinical question answering tasks in English and Spanish. We introduce a perturbation based evaluation benchmark that probes model robustness, instruction following, and sensitivity to adversarial variations. Our evaluation includes, one-step and two-step question transformations, multi prompt testing and instruction guided assessment. We analyze a range of state-of-the-art clinical models and their general-purpose counterparts, focusing on Llama 3.1-based models. Additionally, we introduce Marmoka, a family of lightweight 8B-parameter clinical LLMs for English and Spanish, developed via continual domain-adaptive pretraining on medical corpora and instructions. RESULTS: The experiments show that clinical LLMs do not consistently outperform their general purpose counterparts on English clinical tasks, even under the proposed perturbation based benchmark. However, for the Spanish subsets the proposed Marmoka models obtain better results compared to Llama. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that, under current short-form MCQA benchmarks, clinical LLMs offer only marginal and unstable improvements over general-purpose models in English, suggesting that existing evaluation frameworks may be insufficient to capture genuine medical expertise. We further find that both general and clinical models exhibit substantial limitations in instruction following and strict output formatting. Finally, we demonstrate that robust medical LLMs can be successfully developed for low-resource languages such as Spanish, as evidenced by the Marmoka models.