Lingdan-V2: Large language models for clinically grounded reasoning in traditional Chinese medicine
Organizations: School of Computer Science & Technology, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, 100044, China · Tianjin Tasly Digital Chinese Medicine Technology Co., Ltd., Tianjin, 300410, China · Tasly Biopharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Tianjin, 300410, China · Institute of Liver Diseases, Hubei Key Laboratory of the Theory and Application Research of Liver and Kidney in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Wuhan, 430061, China ·
Abstract
Large language models have advanced medical reasoning, but clinically grounded reasoning in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) remains challenging because prescription decisions require integrating domain knowledge, syndrome differentiation, treatment principles, herbal prescription composition, and dosage determination. We develop a TCM language model family comprising models with 4 billion, 8 billion, and 14 billion parameters. The artificial intelligence contribution is a staged clinical alignment framework integrating large scale continued pretraining on TCM and clinical records, complementary reasoning supervision, and prescription-centered reinforcement learning (RL). We further formulate herbal prescription generation as a structured RL problem with prescription-level feedback, enabling direct optimization of clinical decision outputs beyond knowledge reproduction and generic instruction following. The engineering application is TCM clinical decision support, particularly herbal prescription recommendation. We evaluate the models on a public benchmark containing 25,620 expert-verified items across 13 TCM knowledge and clinical reasoning tasks and on a private retrospective dataset of 4,348 spleen and stomach disease prescription cases. The 14 billion parameter reinforcement aligned model achieves a prescription generation F1 of 37.0 on the public benchmark, compared with 32.3 for DeepSeek-R1 with 671 billion total parameters, and a herb-level F1 of 52.8 on the clinical dataset with improved dosage agreement. Reinforcement post-training consistently improves prescription recommendation across all scales, while physician-source analysis shows that expert heterogeneity affects reward stability. These findings demonstrate a scalable pathway from domain grounding and reasoning supervision to clinically oriented prescription decision support.
Figures & tables
| Data category | Tokens (B) | Share (%) | Domain |
| Longitudinal patient care trajectories corpus | 10.42 | 62.72 | TCM/EMR |
| Clinical diagnosis and physician-assistance data | 0.50 | 2.98 | TCM/EMR |
| Entity extraction data | 0.44 | 2.66 | TCM |
| Lingdan V1 data | 0.32 | 1.90 | TCM |
| Classical texts with translations | 0.29 | 1.75 | TCM |
| Knowledge graph and patent medicine question answering | 0.18 | 1.11 | TCM |
| Training component | Samples | Tokens (M) |
| Direct-answer instruction data | 6,879,359 | 1,238.49 |
| Reasoning-format SFT data | 200,529 | 216.24 |
| Instruction distillation with reasoning traces | 46,221 | 70.33 |
| Instruction data without reasoning traces | 75,741 | 26.98 |
| TCM multi-turn dialogue data | 18,468 | 8.45 |
| Physician-synthesized cases | 262,987 | 155.18 |
| Dom. | Subtask | Metric | DeepSeek-R1 [-1pt] 671B | DeepSeek-V3.1 [-1pt] 671B | GPT-5 [-1pt] Undisclosed | Qwen3 [-1pt] 235B | Qwen3 [-1pt] 32B | Baichuan-M2 [-1pt] 32B | Qwen3-Next [-1pt] 80B-A3B | GPT-OSS [-1pt] 120B | Lingdan-14B [-1pt] R1 |
| TLE | Comprehensive | Accuracy | 95.0 / 78.3 | 95.5 / 81.0 | 87.6 / 52.3 | 95.0 / 77.8 | 91.2 / 62.3 | 89.8 / 58.3 | 93.8 / 73.0 | 58.1 / 14.5 | 91.7 / 67.0 |
| FTK | Single-choice | Accuracy | 86.1 / 46.5 | 86.1 / 45.3 | 85.4 / 44.5 | 85.0 / 45.3 | 86.1 / 44.3 | 83.4 / 35.8 | 82.1 / 33.3 | 70.4 / 28.2 | 88.2 / 54.8 |
| FTK | Multiple-choice | Accuracy | 64.8 / 31.5 | 62.4 / 28.0 | 53.9 / 19.3 | 61.3 / 25.0 | 56.3 / 23.3 | 48.6 / 14.0 | 52.6 / 14.8 | 35.3 / 9.8 | 62.2 / 30.3 |
| FTK | Multiple-choice | Precision | 92.5 / 82.4 | 91.9 / 80.5 | 90.6 / 75.3 | 93.0 / 80.9 | 90.3 / 77.5 | 90.5 / 75.4 | 89.4 / 71.6 | 81.2 / 63.5 | 89.7 / 77.9 |
| FTK | Multiple-choice | Recall | 92.1 / 79.3 | 92.0 / 80.5 | 87.2 / 69.8 | 89.1 / 73.7 | 90.9 / 78.0 | 84.5 / 66.1 | 84.7 / 65.2 | 83.2 / 65.6 | 94.9 / 86.1 |
| FTK | Multiple-choice | F1 | 91.0 / 77.8 | 90.6 / 77.5 | 87.3 / 69.3 | 89.5 / 73.7 | 89.1 / 74.8 | 85.3 / 66.4 | 84.7 / 64.2 | 80.0 / 61.3 | 91.1 / 79.4 |
| Dom. | Subtask | Metric | Lingdan-V1 [-1pt] 13B | TCMChat [-1pt] 7B | Baichuan2 [-1pt] 13B | BianCang [-1pt] 7B | BianCang [-1pt] 14B | ShizhenGPT [-1pt] 7B | ShizhenGPT [-1pt] 32B | Lingdan-R1 [-1pt] 14B |
| TLE | Comprehensive | Accuracy | 44.3 / 20.8 | 31.6 / 19.5 | 50.1 / 21.8 | 88.9 / 70.0 | 91.2 / 73.5 | 83.6 / 54.5 | 90.7 / 67.0 | 91.7 / 67.0 |
| FTK | Single-choice | Accuracy | 48.4 / 26.3 | 11.1 / 7.5 | 60.6 / 28.5 | 78.2 / 43.3 | 82.6 / 49.3 | 79.9 / 41.3 | 83.5 / 47.8 | 88.2 / 54.8 |
| FTK | Multiple-choice | F1 | 52.4 / 49.0 | 39.9 / 32.4 | 75.9 / 67.7 | 76.2 / 68.0 | 55.8 / 50.3 | 81.6 / 66.9 | 86.7 / 72.7 | 91.1 / 79.4 |
| FTK | Cloze | F1 | 8.5 / 4.5 | 13.9 / 6.5 | 33.2 / 13.3 | 35.4 / 15.0 | 38.7 / 14.6 | 40.6 / 17.7 | 49.8 / 20.9 | 60.2 / 23.9 |
| CPMK | Single-choice | Accuracy | 28.3 / 16.3 | 19.2 / 18.5 | 41.6 / 24.8 | 58.4 / 31.8 | 62.5 / 35.5 | 56.5 / 20.3 | 68.7 / 27.3 | 78.1 / 38.3 |
| CPMK | Multiple-choice | F1 | 52.3 / 51.2 | 33.8 / 29.7 | 75.2 / 65.4 | 77.1 / 68.3 | 36.3 / 27.8 | 78.0 / 63.1 | 82.7 / 67.8 | 87.7 / 76.6 |
| Model | F1 | Precision | Recall | Dose cosine | Dose MAE |
| Lingdan-14B-R1 | 52.8 | 51.8 | 55.4 | 50.6 | 4.369 |
| Lingdan-8B-R1 | 50.7 | 55.0 | 48.3 | 49.5 | 6.006 |
| Lingdan-4B-R1 | 52.7 | 52.5 | 54.1 | 49.5 | 5.062 |
| Lingdan-14B-SFT | 35.1 | 52.0 | 27.1 | 34.8 | 5.840 |
| Lingdan-8B-SFT | 34.2 | 52.7 | 26.0 | 34.2 | 5.812 |
| Lingdan-4B-SFT | 33.7 | 51.6 | 25.7 | 34.1 | 5.787 |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Dataset | Category |
| TCMChat Dai et al. (2024) | TCM dialogue |
| Huatuo-26M Li et al. (2023) | Medical instruction data |
| CMB Wang et al. (2024) | Chinese medical knowledge benchmark |
| CMExam Liu et al. (2023) | TCM examination dataset |
| MTCMB Kong et al. (2025) | TCM multi-task dataset |
| cMedQA2 Zhang et al. (2018) | Medical question answering |
| Dom. | Subtask | Metric | Qwen3 [-1pt] 32B | Qwen3 [-1pt] 30B-A3B | Qwen3 [-1pt] 14B | Qwen3 [-1pt] 8B | Qwen3 [-1pt] 4B | GPT-5-mini [-1pt] Undisclosed | GPT-OSS [-1pt] 20B | Lingdan-4B [-1pt] R1 | Lingdan-8B [-1pt] R1 | Lingdan-14B [-1pt] R1 |
| TLE | Comprehensive | Accuracy | 91.2 / 62.3 | 88.8 / 55.3 | 87.6 / 50.0 | 84.6 / 40.5 | 76.6 / 30.3 | 76.3 / 24.5 | 48.3 / 13.5 | 81.0 / 40.8 | 86.2 / 50.2 | 91.7 / 67.0 |
| FTK | Single-choice | Accuracy | 86.1 / 44.3 | 82.6 / 32.0 | 83.0 / 34.5 | 80.8 / 33.8 | 76.2 / 28.5 | 77.0 / 28.7 | 65.4 / 29.3 | 81.5 / 40.3 | 83.9 / 46.0 | 88.2 / 54.8 |
| FTK | Multiple-choice | Accuracy | 56.3 / 23.3 | 52.0 / 17.0 | 49.5 / 13.8 | 47.8 / 13.0 | 42.4 / 12.3 | 46.2 / 10.8 | 24.8 / 6.0 | 51.6 / 23.0 | 55.6 / 24.5 | 62.2 / 30.3 |
| FTK | Multiple-choice | Precision | 90.3 / 77.5 | 89.8 / 75.2 | 90.6 / 75.2 | 88.4 / 71.8 | 86.1 / 69.0 | 86.1 / 67.7 | 76.1 / 59.5 | 86.2 / 73.2 | 90.1 / 77.5 | 89.7 / 77.9 |
| FTK | Multiple-choice | Recall | 90.9 / 78.0 | 88.3 / 73.5 | 85.7 / 69.4 | 86.8 / 70.2 | 84.9 / 67.6 | 86.8 / 69.0 | 74.9 / 58.1 | 93.6 / 85.3 | 89.5 / 78.8 | 94.9 / 86.1 |
| FTK | Multiple-choice | F1 | 89.1 / 74.8 | 87.4 / 71.0 | 86.3 / 68.7 | 85.8 / 67.6 | 83.5 / 64.8 | 84.8 / 65.3 | 72.9 / 55.0 | 88.4 / 76.3 | 88.2 / 74.9 | 91.1 / 79.4 |