# The Evolving Landscape of Generative Large Language Models and Traditional Natural Language Processing in Medicine

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10261 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10261/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 6 of its 13 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 15 May 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.03426/) (2018)
- [BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.05794/) (2022)
- [MedCPT: Contrastive Pre-trained Transformers with Large-scale PubMed Search Logs for Zero-shot Biomedical Information Retrieval](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.00589/) (2023)
- [KG-Rank: Enhancing Large Language Models for Medical QA with Knowledge Graphs and Ranking Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05881/) (2024)
- [Neural Natural Language Processing for Unstructured Data in Electronic Health Records: a Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.02975/) (2021)
- [Generative Large Language Models Trained for Detecting Errors in Radiology Reports](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.04336/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Natural language processing (NLP) has been traditionally applied to medicine, and generative large language models (LLMs) have become prominent recently. However, the differences between them across different medical tasks remain underexplored. We analyzed 19,123 studies, finding that generative LLMs demonstrate advantages in open-ended tasks, while traditional NLP dominates in information extraction and analysis tasks. As these technologies advance, ethical use of them is essential to ensure their potential in medical applications.