Biomedical Text

Background. Large language models are increasingly used to help write biomedical text but may fabricate references to nonexistent work. How often large language models do so is not well characterized. Methods. We prompted 26 language models from eight developers (2023 to 2026) to supply a missing reference for each of 69 biomedical passages across ten domains. References were classified as verifiable (real paper with a resolving identifier), partial matches (real paper without a resolving identifier), fabricated (no matching indexed paper), or declined (the model refused to supply a reference). A reference was considered correct in every evaluated bibliographic field only when it was verifiable and its journal, year, and listed authors matched those of the cited paper. Results. Fabrication ranged from 10.2% (Claude Opus 4.8, which declined 52.1% of prompts) to 98.4% (Ministral 3B, which produced no verifiable reference). Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 produced similar proportions of verifiable references (77.6% and 76.6%) but named authors correctly in 78.7% and 28.7% of author-evaluable verifiable references, respectively, and were correct in every evaluated field in 54.6% and 19.9% of responses. GPT-5.5 was correct in every field in 48.1%. Across all models, 55.4% of responses were fabricated and 14.9% were correct in every field. Among the five tested models first released in 2026, the corresponding proportions were 35.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Conclusions. Fabrication remained common, and no model was correct in every evaluated bibliographic field in more than 54.6% of responses. Models that identify real papers may still misstate their metadata, so references produced with model assistance require verification before use.

We introduce OntologyBench, a tiered biomedical retrieval benchmark comprising 471,854 training and 125,744 evaluation query-document relevance pairs across concept grounding, relational retrieval, and compositional phenotype-based retrieval. Although these tasks can be tractable using ontology-aware reference methods, across task tiers, embedding performance is generally lower on relational and compositional tasks than on concept-grounding tasks. Fine-tuning on ontology-derived supervision improves performance on several relational and compositional tasks, whereas the evaluated reranking and LLM-based candidate-scoring methods provide little or no end-to-end improvement. Errors frequently reflect diseases matching only subsets of the phenotype evidence. These findings indicate that the evaluated embedding and reranking configurations do not reliably recover the compatibility encoded by the selected ontology relations and phenotype combinations and motivate retrieval systems that better integrate learned representations with structured biomedical knowledge.

Background. Large language models (LLMs) are being adopted in biomedical research at a rapid and accelerating pace, yet commercial services that host many widely used models operate under deprecation schedules that can complicate scientific reproducibility. Methods. We searched PubMed for original research articles from 2022 through March 2026 that applied a specific LLM to a biomedical task. An extraction agent identified model names from 61,077 article abstracts with human reviewers validating a subset for extraction accuracy. Extracted model names were normalized to canonical model identifiers. Lifecycle data (release date, retirement date, status) were compiled for the 50 most frequently used models. Results. We identified 8,931 paper-model mentions spanning 5,242 unique publications after restricting the analysis to the 50 most frequently used models. Among these mentions, 77.7% cited a commercial closed-weight model. Overall, 42% involved a model that was already retired by the time of official publication or is scheduled to retire within two years of publication. The median interval from publication to model retirement was 538 days. Conclusion. Many biomedical publications using LLMs are on a trajectory toward computational non-reproducibility after publication. Model deprecation should be treated as a core reporting and preservation issue for biomedical research.

BioMedRAG introduced retrieval-augmented generation with a learned chunk scorer for biomedical information extraction. However, it relies on fixed-size chunking which can fragment semantic evidence. We propose a configurable semantic chunking framework that addresses this limitation by combining entity-preserving windows, trigger-centered chunking, proposition-first extraction, tiered trigger prioritization, and hierarchical relation resolution. The framework integrates with BioMedRAG by replacing only the chunk construction stage while preserving the embedding model, learned chunk scorer, generator, and evaluation protocol. We evaluate the framework on biomedical relation extraction benchmarks (GM-CIHT, DDI, ChemProt) and adverse event classification (ADE). On GM-CIHT, the full hybrid configuration achieves 82.6% F1, improving over the fixed-size baseline (74.2% F1) by 8.4 points under our experimental setup. Cross-dataset analysis shows that semantic chunking improves extraction datasets with explicit relation cues, such as GM-CIHT and DDI, while fixed chunking remains competitive or stronger for dense biochemical extraction and binary classification settings such as ChemProt and ADE. By externalizing chunking logic into configuration files, the framework provides an interpretable and adaptable alternative to rigid fixed-size chunking for biomedical RAG pipelines.

Over the past several years, LLM-powered chatbots and agents have become widely used as a tool for academic writing. LLM-assisted writing can be valuable by removing language barriers but at the same time causes concerns about misconduct and fraud. To inform policy decisions, it is necessary to monitor the prevalence of LLM-altered texts in scholarly publications. Despite some recent progress in this direction, no existing method can produce reliable estimates. Here we suggest and validate a new unbiased approach to estimate LLM usage in a corpus of texts based on changing word frequencies. We apply our method to the full texts of open-access biomedical papers from Pubmed Central, and show that by the end of 2025, 89% of papers show excess of LLM-associated vocabulary. We also find that LLMs are twice as likely to be used when writing a paragraph in the Discussion section (68%) compared to a paragraph in the Methods section (32%), but even inside the Methods section, the overall prevalence of LLM usage is over 50%. We believe that our estimates are crucial to shape future guidelines and policies.

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.

Constructing causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) is a core step in biomedical causal analysis, yet it remains a largely manual process. Analysts must connect study variables to prior literature, evaluate uncertain causal claims, and preserve sufficient provenance for expert review. We present EviDAG, a browser-based system for authoring causal DAGs as auditable, evidence-linked artifacts from biomedical literature. Given free-text descriptions of study concepts, EviDAG creates a reproducible literature snapshot, uses an LLM-based reasoning module to generate structured pairwise causal judgments, links literature-supported judgments to verbatim evidence excerpts, and assembles the judgments into a constraint-checked graph. Each proposed edge includes confidence estimates, provenance, and a reviewable rationale. The interface supports study specification, progress monitoring, evidence review, graph comparison, adjustment-set computation, and export. In evaluations against both compact benchmark DAGs and reference DAGs derived from published literature, EviDAG achieves high edge recall on the literature-based cohort while retaining verifiable evidence trails absent from LLM-only baselines. EviDAG thus reduces the burden of causal DAG curation while making the resulting assumptions auditable, supporting the design, analysis, and interpretation of biomedical studies.

Biomedical language evolves rapidly as new discoveries emerge, causing traditional text models to lose semantic fidelity over time. Static embeddings and co-occurrence graphs cannot capture such evolution, leading to performance degradation in retrieval and knowledge discovery tasks. This paper introduces a Drift-Aware Temporal Graph Rewiring (DATGR) framework that models concept evolution by dynamically updating co-occurrence edges based on estimated semantic drift. Instead of retraining embeddings for each time slice, DATGR performs lightweight, feedback-driven rewiring using a logistic update rule applied to edge weights. Evaluated on the Biomedical Multi-Relation Corpus (BIOMRC), the method achieved a mean Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) improvement of approximately 0.066 absolute difference (0.699 vs. 0.633) over a static baseline. Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC) remained comparable (0.738 vs. 0.744), showing that drift-aware adaptation enhances link-prediction recall without a loss in precision. These results demonstrate that edge-level adaptation effectively captures temporal semantic change in evolving biomedical text while remaining computationally efficient and interpretable.

Scientific long-document summarization datasets commonly treat author-written abstracts as gold reference summaries, although their quality and alignment with the source article vary. At the same time, publicly available scientific summarization datasets remain limited in scale and structure for modern long-context models. In this work, we address both challenges by a) constructing and releasing one of the largest biomedical and life science datasets for long-document summarization, containing 1.88 million PMC articles, and b) analyzing the reference quality of author-written abstracts with source-grounded and model-based metrics. We show that author-written abstracts vary in their alignment with the full article and that these quality signals can guide training-data selection. Training on selected high-quality subsets outperforms random sampling at matched training sizes and can match or exceed larger random subsets on factuality-oriented metrics. Our findings suggest that reference quality is an important factor in scientific summarization and that quality-aware data selection can improve training efficiency.

Knowledge graphs (KGs) have emerged as a promising solution for integrating and reasoning over complex biomedical and clinical data in healthcare. By representing structured relationships among entities such as diseases, drugs, symptoms, and patient records, KGs provide a semantic backbone for decision-making, prediction, recommendation, and personalized care. Recent advances have demonstrated their utility across diverse medical applications--including clinical decision support systems, disease and treatment outcome prediction, health recommender systems, precision medicine, and medical question answering--where KGs often enhance interpretability, semantic coherence, and patient-specific reasoning. In parallel, a growing body of work focuses on medical KG generation itself, proposing frameworks that construct graphs from EHRs, clinical narratives, biomedical literature, and web resources using ontologies, semantic web technologies, deep-learning-based information extraction, and hybrid neuro-symbolic pipelines. Despite this progress, significant challenges remain, including limited and fragmented knowledge coverage, difficulties in aligning heterogeneous data sources, the fragility of current reasoning and representation-learning methods on dense multi-relational graphs, and unresolved issues related to privacy, bias, and accountability. This survey reviews and categorizes current research on KGs in medicine along both application-oriented and methodology-oriented dimensions, discusses their benefits and technical foundations, and outlines key limitations and open research directions. By analyzing trends, architectures, and evaluation practices, this work aims to guide future developments in KG-driven medical AI systems and support their safe and effective integration into healthcare environments.

Identifying conditions that a certain drug takes therapeutic effect on a target disease is crucial for clinical decision-making support. However, most existing biomedical information extraction methods have focused on identifying only relations between drugs and diseases, while largely overlooking the context-specific conditions where such relations can apply. To address this problem, we introduce the task of applicability condition extraction for therapeutic drug-disease relations from biomedical research literature. We create the first dataset that has manually annotated triples of drugs, diseases, and applicability conditions on biomedical paper abstracts with 1,119 drug-disease pairs. Using this dataset, we systematically evaluate the performance of a range of existing methods. In addition, we propose a new method that enhances LoRA to consider relations between drugs and diseases. Our method consistently outperforms strong baselines across different evaluation settings.

Structured abstracts are important for biomedical literature processing, by facilitating information retrieval, text mining, and knowledge synthesis. However, a vast portion of abstracts indexed in PubMed remain unstructured, presenting a significant bottleneck for downstream text-processing workflows and applications. To resolve this limitation, we introduce Structured PubMed, a comprehensive corpus of section-labeled biomedical abstracts compiled from the complete PubMed database, encompassing over 23.2 million research-article records. The corpus is divided into two distinct subsets: a collection of 5.9 million author-structured abstracts parsed from official XML files, and an automatically labeled collection of 17.2 million originally unstructured abstracts structured via a verbatim-extraction Large Language Model pipeline. Every record is harmonized under a unified five-section schema and mapped to its original PubMed identifier, publication type, and publication date. This dataset can be utilized to train sentence-classification models, benchmark text-segmentation architectures, and perform large-scale, section-specific information extraction at an unprecedented PubMed-wide scale.

In this investigation, we delve into the automated detection of speculative language within biomedical articles by utilizing distributed sentence representations and advanced deep learning techniques. The implications of such identification extend to information retrieval, multi-document summarization, and the exploration of new knowledge. Our exploration encompasses two distinct approaches for acquiring distributed sentence representations: the Paragraph Vector model and the Recursive Neural Tensor Network. These methodologies are then rigorously compared against three foundational baseline algorithms: Support Vector Machines, Naive Bayes, and pattern matching. Our findings reveal that the Recursive Neural Tensor Network (RNTN) demonstrates a slight performance edge (F1 = 0.885) over the top-performing baseline, the linear bigram SVM (F1 = 0.881). Meanwhile, the Paragraph Vector model proves less effective (F1 = 0.368), even after extensive training using an expansive, unlabeled dataset. We engage in a comprehensive discourse on the factors influencing these performance disparities and provide insightful recommendations for future research directions.

Biomedical text mining, scientometrics, and the construction of training corpora for biomedical large language models (LLMs) all assume that the abstract text returned by a bibliographic API faithfully reproduces the published abstract. This pre-registered audit (OSF osf.io/269b5) tests that assumption for four widely used public APIs (PubMed E-utilities, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar) against PubMed Central (PMC) JATS XML as a common ground truth. From a complete enumeration of the PMC Open Access subset for 2024 (about 700,000 records), a simple random sample of 4,000 English-language research articles was drawn; for each, we recorded whether Unicode characters from four pre-specified classes present in the JATS abstract (typographic punctuation, mathematical/scientific symbols, Greek letters, special whitespace) were preserved by each API. Two systematic, deterministic losses met the pre-registered criterion (upper 95% CI bound below 5%): the PubMed AbstractText field preserved typographic punctuation in only 0.6% of eligible abstracts (95% CI 0.3-1.0%), and OpenAlex preserved special whitespace in 0% (0.0-0.4%). A blinded mechanism audit attributed the first loss to character substitution and the second to inverted-index serialization. Mathematical symbols and Greek letters were preserved faithfully (over 95%) by all four APIs. Separately, Crossref returned no abstract for 24.6% of papers (coverage 75.4%, 95% CI 74.1-76.7%), concentrated in specific publishers (Elsevier and ACS: 0%). Character-level fidelity is therefore API-dependent and undocumented: the same publisher-deposited JATS text carries different surface signatures depending on the serving API, with direct consequences for tokenization-sensitive bibliometrics, corpus construction, and character-level indicators of LLM-assisted writing.

Systematic characterization of drug-disease relationships is essential for drug discovery and repurposing, yet is hindered by the heterogeneity and rapid growth of biomedical literature. Existing datasets rely on labor-intensive curation and are often incomplete, while LLM-only approaches suffer from hallucination and weak evidence grounding. We introduce UniD$^3$, a unified framework that integrates Large Language Models with Knowledge Graph-enhanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation (KG-RAG) to extract, organize, and validate drug-disease knowledge across Drug-Disease Matching (DDM), Drug Effectiveness Assessment (DEA), and Drug-Target Analysis (DTA). UniD$^3$ processes 157,849 PubMed articles with Llama 3.3-70B and constructs knowledge graphs via a dual-stage strategy combining paper-level extraction with KG-level consolidation centered on drug and disease entities. These graphs support KG-RAG-based generation of structured datasets, evaluated through external benchmarks, fuzzy matching with curated resources, and clinician review. UniD$^3$ produces six knowledge graphs and large-scale datasets, including 28,915 DDM, 15,042 DEA, and over 4,000 DTA QA pairs. External validation shows strong performance (F1: 0.85-0.87 for DDM/DEA; 0.82 for DTA), with clinician review confirming high reliability (AUROC = 0.90). KG-RAG-augmented models outperform standalone LLMs, and the UniD$^3$ chatbot enables interpretable, citation-supported exploration of drug-disease relationships. UniD$^3$ provides a scalable, extensible framework for transforming unstructured biomedical literature into high-quality, structured drug-disease knowledge, supporting AI-driven discovery, repurposing, and precision medicine.

General-purpose VLMs remain unreliable for biomedical research because valid answers in scientific papers depend on evidence split across figures, tables, charts, captions, and referring text. Existing post-training pipelines are bottlenecked by costly expert annotation and by synthetic data that drops this evidence structure. We present Ryze, a fully automated system that converts raw biomedical papers into an evidence-enriched training set and a domain-specialized VLM. Ryze synthesizes QA pairs with complete supporting evidence (visual element, caption, extracted structure, and referring paragraphs), reduces layout and OCR errors via chart/table-aware extraction and LLM-based cleansing, and applies a progress-gated post-training strategy combining supervised fine-tuning with reinforcement learning. Starting from Qwen3-VL-8B, Ryze produces BioVLM-8B at under USD 200, achieving 48.0% weighted accuracy on LAB-Bench, outperforming the base model by +12.6 percentage points (pp) and surpassing GPT-5.2 by +3.8 pp. We release Ryze as open source together with the trained BioVLM-8B model.

Causal relation extraction (CRE) is central to biomedical text mining, but current resources often conflate causal relations with broader associations, restrict annotation to sentence-level examples, or focus mainly on explicit causal cues. This limits their usefulness for evaluating whether models can recover causal claims as they are actually expressed in biomedical text. We introduce PubMedCausal, a span-level annotated corpus for biomedical CRE built from PubMed abstracts. The corpus contains 30,000 paragraph-level rows, including 3,945 causal rows and 6,491 adjudicated cause--effect pairs. Each causal relation is annotated with full-text cause and effect spans, causality type, and sententiality, enabling evaluation of both causal detection and full-span causal extraction. We benchmark discriminative encoders and open-source generative models across detection and extraction settings. For causal detection, biomedical encoders are strongest, with PubMedBERT reaching an F$_1$ score of 0.7391. For span-level extraction, the best generative baseline is DeepSeek-R1-32B with few-shot prompting, reaching a Cosine Pair F$_1$ of 0.6765. We further test transfer learning by evaluating PubMedCausal-trained encoders on external causal relation datasets, showing that the resource supports cross-dataset evaluation. Our results show that biomedical CRE remains difficult under class imbalance, long causal spans, implicit causality, inter-sentential relations, and prompt sensitivity. Code and Data can be found here: https://github.com/josiahpaul07/PubMedCausal_Exp

Materials discovery and biomedical translation increasingly require models that can reason across composition, processing, structure, biological response, manufacturability, safety, and governance constraints. Existing materials and biomedical data ecosystems are powerful but remain poorly coupled for AI-guided discovery. Here we present AIMBio, a conceptual framework for an AI-native, FAIR, and governance-aware decision layer that links materials provenance, biomedical context, knowledge graphs, uncertainty-aware machine learning, and human-in-the-loop active learning. The framework formulates biomedical-materials discovery as constrained multi-objective optimization under uncertainty and introduces practical requirements for metadata, model documentation, risk-tiered governance, evaluation metrics, and phased implementation. To make the roadmap testable, we add a minimum viable prototype specification and a worked pilot for AI-guided nanomaterials for drug delivery. AIMBio is positioned as exploratory and preclinical discovery infrastructure, not as clinical decision-support software; any clinical or regulated-device use would require separate validation, change control, and regulatory review. The central contribution is a publishable platform blueprint for converting fragmented materials and biomedical records into auditable, experimentally actionable, and translationally responsible discovery workflows.

Biomedical abstracts play a critical role in downstream NLP applications, such as information retrieval, biocuration, and biomedical knowledge discovery. However, a non-trivial number of biomedical articles do not have abstracts, diminishing the utility of these articles for downstream tasks. We propose DPR-BAG (Divide, Prompt, and Refine for Biomedical Abstract Generation), a training-free, zero-shot framework that generates coherent and factually grounded abstracts for biomedical articles with full text but no abstract. DPR-BAG decomposes full-text documents into structured rhetorical facets following the Background-Objective-Methods-Results-Conclusions (BOMRC) schema, performs parallel LLM-based summarization for each facet, and applies a final refinement stage to restore global discourse coherence. On PMC-MAD, a distribution-aligned dataset of 46,309 biomedical articles, DPR-BAG improves abstractive novelty over strong extractive and fine-tuned baselines, while maintaining factual consistency. Our ablation study reveals a counterintuitive finding: increasing prompt complexity or explicitly injecting entity-level guidance can degrade factual alignment, highlighting the importance of controlled prompting strategies. These findings underscore the potential of training-free, structure-aware frameworks for scalable biomedical abstract generation in low-resource settings. Our data and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/pmc-mad/PMC-MAD and https://github.com/ScienceNLP-Lab/MultiTagger-v2/tree/main/DPR-BAG.

When adapting an encoder to a new domain, the standard approach is to continue training with Masked Language Modeling (MLM). We show that temporarily switching to Causal Language Modeling (CLM) followed by a short MLM decay improves downstream performance. On biomedical texts with ModernBERT, this CLM detour outperforms MLM baselines trained on identical data and compute across 8 French and 11 English biomedical tasks, by +1.2-2.8pp and +0.3-0.8pp respectively, depending on model size. We investigate the reasons for these gains. We find that CLM's dense supervision impacts low transformer layers (0-7) far more than MLM does. Freezing low layers during CLM eliminates the downstream benefit; freezing mid layers preserves it. The representational changes persist through the MLM decay phase, even when it matches the CLM phase in length, and they scale with model capacity. We release ModernCamemBERT-bio and ModernBERT-bio as state-of-the-art biomedical encoders in Base and Large sizes.

Accurately and consistently indexing biomedical literature by publication type and study design is essential for supporting evidence synthesis and knowledge discovery. Prior work on automated publication type and study design indexing has primarily focused on expanding label coverage, enriching feature representations, and improving in-domain accuracy, with evaluation typically conducted on data drawn from the same distribution as training. Although pretrained biomedical language models achieve strong performance under these settings, models optimized for in-domain accuracy may rely on superficial lexical or dataset-specific cues, resulting in reduced robustness under distributional shift. In this study, we introduce an evaluation framework based on controlled semantic perturbations to assess the robustness of a publication type classifier and investigate robustness-oriented training strategies that combine entity masking and domain-adversarial training to mitigate reliance on spurious topical correlations. Our results show that the commonly observed trade-off between robustness and in-domain accuracy can be mitigated when robustness objectives are designed to selectively suppress non-task-defining features while preserving salient methodological signals. We find that these improvements arise from two complementary mechanisms: (1) increased reliance on explicit methodological cues when such cues are present in the input, and (2) reduced reliance on spurious domain-specific topical features. These findings highlight the importance of feature-level robustness analysis for publication type and study design classification and suggest that refining masking and adversarial objectives to more selectively suppress topical information may further improve robustness. Data, code, and models are available at: https://github.com/ScienceNLP-Lab/MultiTagger-v2/tree/main/ICHI

Cell-type-specific marker genes are fundamental to plant biology, yet existing resources primarily rely on curated databases or high-throughput studies without explicitly modeling the supporting evidence found in scientific literature. We introduce PlantMarkerBench, a multi-species benchmark for evaluating literature-grounded plant marker evidence interpretation from full-text biological papers. PlantMarkerBench is constructed using a modular curation pipeline integrating large-scale literature retrieval, hybrid search, species-aware biological grounding, structured evidence extraction, and targeted human review. The benchmark spans four plant species -- Arabidopsis, maize, rice, and tomato -- and contains 5,550 sentence-level evidence instances annotated for marker-evidence validity, evidence type, and support strength. We define two benchmark tasks: determining whether a candidate sentence provides valid marker evidence for a gene-cell-type pair, and classifying the evidence into expression, localization, function, indirect, or negative categories. We benchmark diverse open-weight and closed-source language models across species and prompting strategies. Although frontier models achieve relatively strong performance on direct expression evidence, performance drops substantially on functional, indirect, and weak-support evidence, with evidence-type confusion emerging as a dominant failure mode. Open-weight models additionally exhibit elevated false-positive rates under ambiguous biological contexts. PlantMarkerBench provides a challenging and reproducible evaluation framework for literature-grounded biological evidence attribution and supports future research on trustworthy scientific information extraction and AI-assisted plant biology.

Biomedical findings often seem to conflict across studies, but many of these differences are context-dependent rather than true contradictions. Variations in cohort, geography, assay protocol, disease subtype, and clinical setting can make both claims locally valid. Existing NLI and scientific claim-verification benchmarks reduce such cases to entailment, contradiction, or neutral, failing to capture the contextual structure behind divergence. To address this, we introduce BioDivergence, an evaluation framework with a six-class conflict taxonomy, a 13-axis divergence ontology, and four structured outputs per claim pair: conflict type, divergence axes, dominant confounder, and reconciliation explanation. We release BioDivergence-Silver-v1.0, an article-disjoint silver benchmark of 11,865 claim pairs across five biomedical domains, alongside a legacy deduplicated variant for comparison. Results show notable ranking differences between the two variants, with the fine-tuned reference model dropping about 12 points under the article-disjoint setting, while Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 achieves 0.5523 accuracy and 0.3894 contextual-F1 on the 842-example primary test set. BioDivergence offers a more faithful way to distinguish contextual divergence from direct contradiction and to separate article-level memorization from genuine task learning.

Effective biomedical information retrieval requires modeling domain semantics and hierarchical relationships among biomedical texts. Existing biomedical generative retrievers build on coarse binary relevance signals, limiting their ability to capture semantic overlap. We propose BioHiCL (Biomedical Retrieval with Hierarchical Multi-Label Contrastive Learning), which leverages hierarchical MeSH annotations to provide structured supervision for multi-label contrastive learning. Our models, BioHiCL-Base (0.1B) and BioHiCL-Large (0.3B), achieve promising performance on biomedical retrieval, sentence similarity, and question answering tasks, while remaining computationally efficient for deployment.

While dense biomedical embeddings achieve strong performance, their opaque dimensions limit transparency in biomedical NLP. Recent question-based interpretable embeddings represent text through binary answers to natural-language questions, but existing approaches rely primarily on corpus-driven signals, often capturing topical or stylistic differences rather than fine-grained biomedical distinctions. We propose QIME, an ontology-grounded framework for interpretable biomedical text embeddings in which each dimension corresponds to an explicit biomedical-domain yes/no question. QIME leverages a biomedical ontology to guide contrastive question generation from semantic clusters, producing atomic, domain-grounded questions. It constructs embeddings via similarity-based semantic activation with MMR-based diversity-aware dimension selection, yielding sparse representations efficiently. Experiments on biomedical clustering, STS and retrieval benchmarks show that QIME consistently outperforms prior interpretable embedding methods and substantially narrows the gap to strong black-box biomedical encoders. It also imposes substantially lower cognitive burden than existing methods, providing concise and domain-specific interpretations. The code is available at https://github.com/L1nzh/QIME.