Large Language Models Evaluation for PubMed Extractive Summarisation

The increasingly large amount of available biomedical literature is making it difficult to gather and synthesise all the necessary information. Moreover, this domain-specific task demands a high level of reliability in the generated text and concepts. Pre-trained large language models have recently shown promising results. Given the specific requirements of biomedical text summarisation, our evaluation focuses on extractive models, prioritising the accuracy of the generated text. In this article, we evaluate the capabilities of 18 general-domain and biomedical pre-trained language models in various configurations on the biomedical extractive summarisation task using one single and two multi-document datasets consisting of 33,000, 5,000 and 470,000 PubMed articles, respectively. We performed the comparison using several well-known metrics, namely ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, ROUGE-L, BERTScore, BLEU and METEOR. The main contribution of this work lies in providing a detailed performance analysis, highlighting the differences between general-domain and biomedical models, and identifying key factors that influence model performance in extractive summarisation tasks within the biomedical domain. Experimental results show that biomedical models tend to result in higher recall, while general-domain models produce higher precision, while general-domain models produce higher precision. This corresponds to more expressive summaries for biomedical models and shorter summaries for general-domain models.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare
Published
2025-09-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3766905
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.96
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Large Language Models Evaluation for PubMed Extractive Summarisation

Flavio Bertini, Danilo Montesi, Tian Xia
2 citations
ACM Transactions on Computing for Healthcare
Topic Modeling
4.96
article

Large Language Models Evaluation for PubMed Extractive Summarisation

Flavio Bertini, Danilo Montesi, Tian Xia
article en
2 citations

Abstract

The increasingly large amount of available biomedical literature is making it difficult to gather and synthesise all the necessary information. Moreover, this domain-specific task demands a high level of reliability in the generated text and concepts. Pre-trained large language models have recently shown promising results. Given the specific requirements of biomedical text summarisation, our evaluation focuses on extractive models, prioritising the accuracy of the generated text. In this article, we evaluate the capabilities of 18 general-domain and biomedical pre-trained language models in various configurations on the biomedical extractive summarisation task using one single and two multi-document datasets consisting of 33,000, 5,000 and 470,000 PubMed articles, respectively. We performed the comparison using several well-known metrics, namely ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, ROUGE-L, BERTScore, BLEU and METEOR. The main contribution of this work lies in providing a detailed performance analysis, highlighting the differences between general-domain and biomedical models, and identifying key factors that influence model performance in extractive summarisation tasks within the biomedical domain. Experimental results show that biomedical models tend to result in higher recall, while general-domain models produce higher precision, while general-domain models produce higher precision. This corresponds to more expressive summaries for biomedical models and shorter summaries for general-domain models.

ACM Transactions on Computing for HealthcareVol. 7(1)
University of Parma (IT), University of Bologna (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Topic Modeling
4.96
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.