Abstract
Over the past few years, discriminative and generative large language models (LLMs) have emerged as the predominant approaches in natural language processing. However, despite significant advancements, there remains a gap in comparing the performance of discriminative and generative LLMs in cross-lingual biomedical concept normalization. In this paper, we perform a comparative study across several LLMs on the challenging task of cross-lingual biomedical concept normalization via dense retrieval. We utilize the XL-BEL dataset covering 10 languages to evaluate the model’s capacity to generalize across various linguistic contexts without further adaptation. The experimental findings demonstrate that e5, a discriminative model, exhibited superior performance, whereas BioMistral emerged as the top-performing generative LLM. The code for reproducing the experiments is available at: https://github.com/hrouhizadeh/zsh_cl_bcn.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the Innosuisse - project no.: 55441.1 IP ICT.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
