Generative small language models in clinical NLP: Applications, adaptation, and evaluation


Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 and Med-PaLM have transformed clinical NLP, demonstrating remarkable capabilities in understanding and generating medical text. However, their deployment in healthcare remains constrained by high computational demands, data privacy risks and limited interpretability. In response, this survey provides a comprehensive synthesis of research on Small Language Models (SLMs) in medicine, presenting an engineering-oriented roadmap for developing efficient, trustworthy, and clinically deployable language models. We systematically reviewed lightweight architectures, parameter-efficient adaptation strategies, and data-centric training techniques that enable domain-specific optimization under limited computational resources. The survey organizes SLM applications across core NLP tasks classification, relation extraction, summarization, and question answering and further examines specialized models designed for domains such as radiology, oncology, ophthalmology, and nuclear medicine. A multidimensional evaluation framework was introduced, combining quantitative and qualitative metrics to assess factual accuracy, clinical reliability, and computational efficiency. Finally, we identify ongoing challenges and future research directions, emphasizing the role of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), and emerging paradigms such as agentic AI. Collectively, this study establishes a foundation for engineering-driven SLM pipelines that balance efficiency, adaptability, and clinical trustworthiness in real-world healthcare applications. This review is intended for a broad interdisciplinary audience, including clinical NLP researchers, machine learning practitioners, healthcare AI engineers, biomedical informatics specialists, and clinicians seeking practical guidance on deploying efficient and privacy-preserving language technologies.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].