TriageRA-CCF: Source-Side Clinical Confidence and Coverage Signals for Adaptive Rank Budgeting in Medical LLMs

Medical multiple-choice question answering requires parameter-efficient adaptation across heterogeneous knowledge domains and reasoning operations. A medication question, a diagnostic decision, a public-health item, and a nursing-action item may require different low-rank updates, while some recall items should preserve the base model's representation with only mild adapter intervention. We propose BiRG-LoRA, a single-adapter rank-gated LoRA method for medical question answering. BiRG-LoRA keeps one LoRA module per target layer but makes its rank dimension input-conditioned: for each question, a biaxial gate combines hidden semantic evidence with specialty/profession priors, clinical-operation priors, and their interaction to select a sparse top-$k$ subset of rank atoms. A scalar injection coefficient further controls the strength of the selected adapter update. Under a matched Qwen3-8B CMB-source protocol, BiRG-LoRA achieves the highest four-benchmark macro-average accuracy among trainable PEFT baselines and matched routing controls: 69.31% averaged over CMB, CMExam, MedQA, and MedMCQA. It improves over MoELoRA by 0.89 percentage points while using 28.1% fewer trainable parameters; a paired, benchmark-stratified bootstrap over final predictions gives a 95% confidence interval of [0.42, 1.37] for this macro-average gain. Basic controls show that BiRG-LoRA also improves over vanilla LoRA r16 and active-rank-matched LoRA r4 by 0.83 macro points, and an evaluation-time weak-axis perturbation check suggests that performance is not brittle to moderate tag noise. The results support a bounded claim: clinically structured rank allocation improves cross-benchmark medical QA under a matched single-seed protocol, while training-seed variance remains future work.

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.

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.