Small LLMs for Biomedical Claim Verification: Cost-Effective Fine-Tuning, Structural Dataset Shortcuts, and Cross-Domain Generalization

Practitioners deploying small open-weight large language models (LLMs) for medical question answering face a recurring design choice: invest in a domain-fine-tuned model, or keep a general-purpose model and inject domain knowledge at inference time via retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). We isolate this trade-off by holding model size, prompt template, decoding temperature, retrieval pipeline, and evaluation protocol fixed, and varying only (i) whether the model has been domain-adapted (Gemma 3 4B vs. MedGemma 4B, both 4-bit quantized and served via Ollama) and (ii) whether retrieved passages from a medical knowledge corpus are inserted into the prompt. We evaluate all four cells of this 2x2 design on the full MedQA-USMLE 4-option test split (1,273 questions) with three repetitions per question (15,276 LLM calls). Domain fine-tuning yields a +6.8 percentage-point gain in majority-vote accuracy over the general 4B baseline (53.3% vs. 46.4%, McNemar p < 10^-4). RAG over MedMCQA explanations does not produce a statistically significant gain in either model, and in the domain-tuned model the point estimate is slightly negative (-1.9 pp, p = 0.16). At this scale and on this benchmark, domain knowledge encoded in weights dominates domain knowledge supplied in context. We release the full experiment code and JSONL traces to support replication.

Open medical language models have converged on a single scale: every widely used system runs at 7B parameters or more, leaving the sub-billion regime uncharacterized. We present MedLLM, an open 0.1B-parameter medical language model trained through a fully open three-phase pipeline: general pretraining with curriculum sequence-length scheduling, domain fine-tuning on MedFineWeb, a reference-guided medical corpus we release that is selected from general web data by embedding similarity to medical question-answering (QA) data, and preference-aligned fine-tuning combining SFT with direct preference optimization (DPO). Across medical benchmarks, MedLLM shows a pattern visible only at sub-billion scale: medical competence does not degrade uniformly under compression but splits by task type. On context-grounded QA it comes within $2.9$pp of a medically adapted 7B model and surpasses the instruction-tuned and general-purpose 7B baselines; on knowledge-recall QA it stays near the task floor on clinical-vignette MedQA yet significantly exceeds every 7B and sub-7B baseline on MedMCQA, indicating that where recall fails the constraint is model capacity rather than adaptation. This dissociation is masked at 7B, where both capabilities are present, and surfaces only when capacity is scarce.

Biomedical fact-checking systems must do more than predict whether a claim is supported, contradicted, or unaddressed: they should also produce evidence that is faithful, complete, and useful for verification. We study this evidence-generation setting on CARE-XAI, a unified benchmark spanning five biomedical and health fact-checking sources. We compare base instruction LLMs, PubMed retrieval-augmented LLMs, fine-tuned LLMs, label-only LLMs, and biomedical encoder classifiers under a shared evaluation protocol. Biomedical classifiers remain strongest for verdict-only prediction, while fine-tuned LLMs are the strongest evidence-generating systems. PubMed retrieval is mixed: it helps PubMed-aligned sources such as PubMedQA and SciFact, but can distract models on broader public-health claims. We introduce Bio-GRACE, a gold-reference-normalized diagnostic for measuring whether retrieved evidence recovers the decision benefit of reference evidence. Bio-GRACE shows that retrieval utility is source-dependent, motivates selective retrieval, and exposes why retrieval recall and lexical evidence overlap are insufficient for biomedical fact-checking.